The concern arises from the much referred to conduct of the statutory body, the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the ECI’s refusal to disclose the exact numbers of votes cast in each booth of every constituency and to make form 17(C) of conduct of election Rules available to the public, along with the minimal action taken against hate speech targeting minorities and opposition parties by senior leaders of the ruling party, are major concerns.

All these former High Court judges, who have no affiliation to any political party, but strongly committed to the ideals enshrined in the Constitution of India, and to the values of electoral democracy, have penned this communication “with a deep anguish at the recent and present goings-on with regard to the parliamentary elections-2024.”

The signatories are G.M. Akbar Ali, former judge, Madras High Court,  Aruna Jagadeesan, former judge, Madras High Court, D. Hariparanthaman, former judge, Madras High Court, Anjana Prakash, former judge, Patna High Court, P.R. Shivakumar, former judge, Madras High Court,  C.T. Selvam, former judge, Madras High Court and S. Vimala, former judge, Madras High Court.

“India is going through an electoral process of immense importance that could determine the very future of its democracy and survival of its constitution. The polling is finally over and June 4, 2024 will be the final chapter of the eighteenth general elections to the Parliament of the world’s most populous country. During this protracted and massive exercise, more than anyone else, India’s working people, its farmers, its women and its youth have reaffirmed their abiding faith in India’s democracy by lining up in large numbers even in the searing heat of summer” states the letter.

The higher judiciary, the election commission, the chief electoral officers in every state and returning officers are the constitutional authorities vested with the onerous responsibility of the free and fair conduct of elections in such a way as to retain the faith of ordinary citizens.

“Several events over the past weeks are making for a very grim storyline; one that may possibly end in a violent conclusion. These are genuine apprehensions in the minds of the vast majority of our people. Reputed civil and human rights organizations and activists have also echoed the same apprehension. There was genuine concern about the way the General Election – 2024 is being conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) and that if the present ruling dispensation loses people’s mandate the transition of power may not be smooth and there could be a constitutional crisis.

“In this context the signatories have also referred to the open statement issued by Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG) of former civil servants on 25 May 2024:

“… During the 2024 general elections, concerns have been raised at many points about the fairness of the elections… It pains us to say that no Election Commission in the past has been as reluctant as the present one to discharge its duties, despite violations being repeatedly brought to its attention by responsible organisations and respected members of society.”

Stating that they are constrained to agree with the scenario envisaged in the above statement: “In the event of a hung parliament, onerous responsibilities will be placed upon the shoulders of the President of India. We are sure that she will follow the established democratic precedent of first inviting the pre-poll alliance that garnered the largest number of seats. Also, that she would endeavour to pre-empt the possibilities of horse-trading….”

Since, “at this critical juncture, the Supreme Court of India, as the final authority vested with power by “We, the People” to defend and protect the Constitution and democracy, should be ready to take proactive action to prevent any potential catastrophe or to address any monstrous situations that may arise during counting and declaration of results of candidates who have contested in Lok Sabha 2024 elections, requiring immediate intervention by the Honorable Supreme Court.

Hence, therefore, “We, The People of India,” as Citizens of a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic hereby call upon the Supreme Court to ensure presence and attendance of the top five esteemed Justices of the Supreme Court even during the period of the ongoing summer vacation and be available to respond in the event of any constitutional crisis that might emerge in the present situation.

The letter also states that the signatories hope that their “apprehensions are wrong and the elections would end smoothly with counting of votes and declaration of results done in a fair and honest manner and formation of parliament as well as transition of power taking place as per the mandate of the people without a hiccup. Nevertheless, the undersigned believe in the old adage- ‘prevention is better than cure!’”

Hence the communication is a reminder to “each of the authorities and institutions charged with the integrity of the process of democratic government formation of their paramount duty to abide by and uphold the Constitution of India”.

The communication “brings forth the solemn pledge that India’s first citizen, the President of India, takes to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law” and to devote herself “to the service and the well-being of the people of India.” The signatories have expressed the expectation and faith that it is these principles that will be Smt Murmu’s guiding light and the. The guiding light of all concerned.

The letter may be read in full here:

The post Protect Electoral Democracy, defend the Constitution and the law: Judges to President of India, Chief Justice of India and ECI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Various women’s organizations, citizens groups, civil rights groups, and students’ groups in Mumbai have been carrying out signature campaigns for the last few weeks, to demand withdrawal of the remission of sentence granted to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case on 15 August 2022.

The signatures of these citizens, who come from all walks of life, were collected, in one-to-one conversations by some organisations, at various places including in communities, trains, roadside, gardens, seafront, and protest demonstrations. Nearly 50 people were involved in the campaign spread across Airoli, Mumbra, Churchgate, Charni Road, Dadar West including all of western, central and harbour line trains. Leaflets in three different languages were circulated, citizens were urged to sign them to demand that the remission be cancelled.

Eventually, as many as 8320 signatures were collected by the joint efforts of various organisations such as All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), Bebaak Collective, Forum Against Oppression of Women, Habitat and Livelihood Welfare Association, Indian Christian for Democracy, Jan Swasthya Abhiyan, Justice Coalition of Religious – West India, National Solidarity Forum, One Future Collective, Pani Haq Samiti, Parcham Collective, Platform for Social Justice, Police Reform Watch, Prabodhan Yuva Sangh, Shoshit Jan Andolan, Urja Trust and the Vinayak Foundation.

On Tuesday, September 6, the feminists gathered at the General Post Office to mail the collected signatures to the CJI. Some images from the day may be seen here:

Speaking about the signature campaign, Chayanika Shah, member of Forum Against Oppression of Women told SabrangIndia, “As across the country, people are showing support for Bilkis Bano in different ways, we decided to take up the signature campaign. We needed to talk to the people and know their feelings about the grant of remission to the convicts of the gang rape case. We wanted to take into account the opinion of ordinary citizens. ” She further said,  “Through the interaction, we found that many people were unaware about the remission news especially, younger generation who did not even know about the happenings of Gujarat 2002 riots. Merely, 10-20% had heard about it whereas 80% were not even aware. That is why one-on-one interaction to collect the signatures was adopted rather than online petitions so that we could talk to people and provide the right information to those who were unaware. While there were also a handful of people who simply refused to engage in the conversation, there were some who even asked why no questions were raised in other similar cases. ”

Pressing upon the importance of offline petitions, she stated, “Face-to-face interaction was a normal practice twenty years ago to collect signatures in support of a cause. It is more engaging than online communication which lacks the personal touch. Therefore, we wish to continue the campaign until the remission happens.”

When asked about people’s reaction during their interaction, she said, “Young people are more enraged. People are worried that the remission to the convicts granted in Bilkis Bano’s case sets a wrong precedent. They see it as an arbitrary decision which is not acceptable to people. People find the felicitation of the convicts post remissions to be distasteful. They do not appreciate the fact that after all the efforts taken to convict the accused in a gang rape case, their punishment is remitted. Some people even said that it would have been easier to accept the remission had it been granted on the basis of old age or severe health problems but it was simply arbitrary to grant remission to all 11 convicts merely because one person went to court asking for it.”

Difference in release provisions as per remission policies of 1992 and later

The main question surrounds the difference between the Gujarat Government’s remission policy of 1992 and 2014. As reported by NDTV, The Gujarat Government’s 1992 remission policy did not have restrictions on the premature release of those convicted of rape or sentenced to life imprisonment, unlike the later policies in both the state and at the Centre. When the channel spoke to Panchmahal District Magistrate, Sujal Mayatra, he reiterated their recommendation was based on the Gujarat government’s 1992 remission policy and they had submitted their recommendation to the state at the end of May.

Justice Salvi too has weighed in on this and told Bar and Bench, “There is no clarity if the State has made amendments to Section 376(2)g of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its definition. Has the State changed the definition of gravity of this offence of gangrape? If there is a modification in its definition, then the 1992 policy would be applicable. But if the definition and gravity of gangrape continues to be the same without amendment, then the policy of 2014 would be applicable, which would mean they shouldn’t be given remission.”

According to Ms. Shah, the intention of the signature campaign in this case is to bring to the CJI’s attention “the grave violation of the Supreme Court order that convicted the accused in the first place. Granted remission merely on the basis of change in policy does not make sense. Supreme Court must pay attention to this.”

Brief background of the case

Bilkis Bano and her family had been attacked in Randhikpur village near Ahmedabad on March 3, 2002. In the particularly brutal attack, 14 members of her family were killed including Bano’s two-and-a-half-year-old daughter whose head was smashed on a rock! Bano, who was over five months pregnant, was gang raped.

After Bano approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Supreme Court ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The accused were arrested in 2004 and the trial originally began in Ahmedabad. However, Bano expressed concerns about witness intimidation and evidence tampering and the case was transferred to Mumbai in August 2004.

In January 2008, a special CBI court convicted 11 people in the case and sentenced them to life imprisonment. But seven people including policemen and doctors were acquitted. In 2017, the High Court upheld the conviction of the 11 people. The court also raised important questions about the role of five policemen and two doctors accused of not performing their duty and tampering with evidence, and set aside their acquittal.

She had been awarded Rs 50 lakh as compensation by the Supreme Court in April 2019 after a prolonged legal battle. But despite that the state government delayed payment of compensation for five months and only did so after the SC once again directed them to do it in September 2019. 

In July 2020, some of the accused who were out on parole, allegedly assaulted and attempted to intimidate a witness in the case. This after the witness tried to prevent them from assaulting two women in a separate matter.

Related:

Bilkis Bano case: Eleven people convicted of gang rape and murder freed
A very bad precedent has been set: Judge who convicted 11 men in Bilkis Bano case
When Accused Become Innocent And Innocent Are Made Accused

The post Signatures collected in support of justice for Bilkis Bano to be sent to the Chief Justice of India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On July 23, 2022, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana delivered an inaugural lecture instituted in the memory of Justice Satya Brata Sinha at the National University of Study & Research in Law, Ranchi and urged the media including the electronic and social media, to behave responsibly and not to overstep their limits to avoid interference from the courts or the government, reported LiveLaw.

He expressed concern over “media running kangaroo courts”, “concerted campaigns” and “ill-informed and agenda driven debates” on issues related to cases before Courts.

With respect to the ‘life of a judge’, he said, “Doing justice is not an easy responsibility. It is becoming increasingly challenging with each passing day. At times, there are also concerted campaigns in media, particularly on social media against judges. Another aspect which affects the fair functioning and independence of judiciary is the rising number of media trials. New media tools have enormous amplifying ability but appear to be incapable of distinguishing between the right and the wrong, the good and the bad, and the real and the fake. Media trials cannot be a guiding factor in deciding cases.”

He further said, “Of late, we see the media running kangaroo courts, at times on issues even experienced judges find difficult to decide. Ill-informed and agenda-driven debates on issues involving justice delivery are proving to be detrimental to the health of democracy. Biased views being propagated by media are affecting the people, weakening democracy, and harming the system. In this process, justice delivery gets adversely affected. By overstepping and breaching your responsibility, you are taking our democracy two steps backwards. Print media still has certain degree of accountability. Whereas, electronic media has zero accountability as what it shows vanishes into thin air. Still worse is social media.”

CJI’s recommendations

1.     Stricter media regulations and accountability

He stated, “You should not overstep and invite interference, either from the government or from the courts. Judges may not react immediately. Please don’t mistake it to be a weakness or helplessness. When liberties are exercised responsibly, within their domains, there will be no necessity of placing reasonable or proportionate external restrictions. I urge upon the media, particularly the electronic and social media, to behave responsibly.”

2.     Strengthen the judiciary and empower judges

Addressing the increasing number of physical attacks on judges he stated, “Can you imagine, a judge who has served on the bench for decades, putting hardened criminals behind the bar, once he retires, loses all the protection that came with the tenure? Judges have to live in the same society as the people that they have convicted, without any security or assurance of safety. Politicians, bureaucrats, police officers and other public representatives are often provided with security even after their retirement owing to the sensitiveness of their jobs. Ironically, judges are not extended similar protection.”

3.     Judicial review of legislative and executive actions

He said, “Judiciary is the organ which breathes life into the Constitution. Judicial review of legislative and executive actions is an integral part of the Constitutional scheme… it is the heart and soul of the Indian Constitution. One gets to hear that judges, being unelected, should not get into legislative and executive arenas. But this ignores the Constitutional responsibilities that is placed on the judiciary.”

4.     Prioritising matters for adjudication

According to the CJI, the judiciary must prioritise the matters for adjudication as judges cannot turn a blind eye to social realities. He said, “I shall not fail to place on record my worries about the future of judiciary in this country… The burden on an already fragile judicial infrastructure is increasing by the day. There have been a few knee-jerk reactions in augmenting infrastructure in a few places. However, I haven’t heard of any concrete plan to equip the judiciary to meet the challenges of the foreseeable future, leave alone, a long-term vision for the century and ahead.”

He further suggested a multi-disciplinary study where scientific methods can be used to equip the judiciary for the future.

It is important to note the recent incident where Justice Pardiwala was targeted on social media following the decision in the Nupur Sharma case. Social and digital media is primarily resorted to expressing personalised opinions more against the judges, rather than a constructive critical appraisal of their judgments. This is what is harming the judicial institution and lowering its dignity.”

Copy of the speech maybe read here: 

On Saturday, July 16, 2022, the Chief Justice, who is set to retire next month, delivered an address at the 18th All India Legal Service Authorities Meet at Jaipur and laid emphasis on hasty indiscriminate arrests and difficulty in obtaining bail, reported LiveLaw. According to him, the process which led to prolonged incarceration of undertrials needed urgent attention.

“In our criminal justice system, the process is the punishment. From hasty indiscriminate arrests, to difficulty in obtaining bail, the process leading to the prolonged incarceration of undertrials needs urgent attention,” the CJI reportedly said.

CJI Ramana who was speaking at the two-day conference organised by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), further said, “We need a holistic plan of action, to increase the efficiency of the administration of criminal justice. Training and sensitization of the police and modernization of the prison system is one facet of improving the administration of criminal justice. NALSA and legal service authorities need to focus on the above issues to determine how best they can help.”

He went on to express his concern at ‘political opposition translating into hostility and the quality of legislative performance’, reported NDTV.

He reportedly said, “Political opposition should not translate into hostility, which we have been sadly witnessing these days. These are not signs of a healthy democracy. There used to be mutual respect between the government and opposition. Unfortunately, space for opposition is diminishing. Sadly, the country is witnessing a decline in the quality of legislative performance as laws are being passed without detailed deliberations and scrutiny.”

Related:

Democracy can never be a police state: Supreme Court

Free legal aid must mean quality service: SC Justice UU Lalit

Preventive Detention: Two judgements, two contrasting views, one judge

The post Ill-informed, agenda-driven debates and biased views are weakening democracy: CJI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At an Independence day celebration at the Supreme Court on Sunday, August 15, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, said the Indian Parliament was seeing a “sorry state of affairs” adding that “there was no clarity of laws” being enacted. This, according to the CJI, was leading to “a lot of inconvenience”. 

According to news reports, Chief Justice Ramana who was speaking at a flag-hoisting ceremony, also said that once there used to be wise and constructive debates in Parliament but now there “was lack of quality in the discussions being held while enacting laws”. According to the CJI this kind of a situation arises when “when intellectuals and professionals like lawyers were not present in the House.”

“If we look at our freedom fighters, many of them were also in the legal fraternity. The first members of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were filled with lawyers’ community,” Chief Justice Ramana said at an event to mark the Independence Day at the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Bar Association conducting an event to celebrate 75th Independence Day.

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, SG Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh @vikassinghSrAdv attending the event.#IndependenceDayIndia2021 #IndependenceDay2021 pic.twitter.com/yfZJzefi3w

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 15, 2021

The Chief Justice of India NV Ramana hoisting the tricolour in the Supreme Court compound on the 75th Independence Day.#IndependenceDay2021 #IndependenceDayIndia #IndianFlag pic.twitter.com/YIaF0KNbxH

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 15, 2021

This is a strong message from the CJI, the second such message this month. Recently he had at an event organised by the National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) called out the threat to human rights and bodily integrity at police stations. He had said “custodial torture and other police atrocities are problems which still prevail in our society. Inspite of constitutional declarations and guarantees, lack of effective legal representation at the police stations is a huge detriment to the arrested and detained persons”. He had added that the dissemination of information about the constitutional right to legal aid is significant in keeping police excesses in check.

The CJI’s statement on August 15, came in the wake of the  abrupt end of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, two two days ahead of schedule, and the repeated disruptions in both the Houses. He was quoted in multiple news reports saying, “If you see debates which used to take place in Houses in those days, they used to be very wise, constructive… Now, (it is) a sorry state of affairs…There is no clarity in laws. It is creating a lot of litigation and loss to the government as well as inconvenience to the public.” 

The CJI added, there was “no clarity in laws. We don’t know for what purpose the laws are made. In the absence of quality debate, we are unable to fathom the intent and object behind the new law: This is what happens if intellectuals and professionals like lawyers are not there in the Houses.”

Union Minister of Law and Justice, Kiren Rijiju reacted to the CJI’s speech and blamed the Opposition for the ruckus, and lack of debates in Parliament.

What’s more shocking is that there are chest-thumping by opposition MPs who openly boasted that they had blocked & stopped Parliament Session. They behaved very rudely, resorted to physical force and used unparliamentary language, degrading the status of ‘Temple of Democracy’. https://t.co/87Hk7D61l5

— Kiren Rijiju (@KirenRijiju) August 15, 2021

What’s more shocking is that there are chest-thumping by opposition MPs who openly boasted that they had blocked & stopped Parliament Session. They behaved very rudely, resorted to physical force and used unparliamentary language, degrading the status of ‘Temple of Democracy’. https://t.co/87Hk7D61l5

— Kiren Rijiju (@KirenRijiju) August 15, 2021

Related:

Threat to human rights and bodily integrity highest in police stations: CJI NV Ramana

The post Sorry state of affairs’ in Parliament: Chief Justice of India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a shocking incident, a top judge of the Supreme Court allegedly asked a government servant accused of repeatedly raping a minor girl, whether he would marry her, reported some media sources.

The petitioner/government servant had appealed against the Bombay High Court that had set aside a Sessions court order granting him pre arrest bail, as per a Bar & Bench report. The exchange between the judge and the petitioner’s counsel as reported by Bar&Bench is as under:

Judge: “Will you marry her?”

To this, the advocate Anand Dilip Langde replied, “I will take instructions.”

Judge: “You should have thought before seducing and raping the young girl. You knew you are a government servant.”

Judge: “We are not forcing you to marry. Let us know if you will. Otherwise, you will say we are forcing you to marry her.”

Bar & Bench reported that the matter was taken up again after other cases, and the petitioner reportedly replied, “I wanted to marry her. But she refused. Now I cannot, as I am already married. Trial is going on; charges are yet to be framed.” The Bench granted the petitioner protection from arrest for four weeks.

The case

The survivor who was a minor in 2019 had accused the petitioner/government servant of rape, cheating, criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code and penetrative sexual assault, sexual harassment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012.

The Additional Sessions Judge had granted the accused anticipatory bail in January last year. On appeal by the survivor, the Bombay High Court recorded her story where she alleged that he raped her and continued to stalk and threaten her. He allegedly used to visit her frequently, as he was a distant relative, and rape her. She stated that sometimes, he also used contraceptives. Further, the accused’s mother somehow persuaded them not to lodge a complaint by promising that she would accept the complainant as her daughter-in-law.

The High Court had recorded the prosecution’s story that, “It was promised that since she was still a minor, the marriage would be performed after she completed 18 years of age. However, later on, respondent No.2 (accused) and his mother backed off from the promise and the FIR was lodged.”

The High Court called the Sessions court’s order “atrocious” as it granted the accused pre arrest bail on grounds that he was falsely implicated by the survivor who even though was a minor, had “sufficient maturity” to understand what had happened with her but refused to lodge an FIR on time.

The High Court’s order recorded, “Astonishingly, merely because she has mentioned in the FIR about use of contraceptive by respondent No.2, the learned Judge has jumped to the conclusion that she was having sufficient maturity… Such an approach is a clear indication that the learned Judge utterly lacks competence. It is indeed a matter which deserves a serious consideration.”

Allowing the survivor’s application, the court said, “The order being clearly perverse, arbitrary and capricious, the application deserves to be allowed and the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed and set aside.”

The Bombay High Court order may be read here:

Related:

Madras HC grants POCSO accused bail if he marries survivor! 
Kerala rapist demands parole to marry survivor; ploy to escape justice?
Dalit teenager killed, body dumped in Aligarh field
Sexual Harassment: SC refuses to dismiss disciplinary proceedings against retired judge
Touching posterior of a minor amounts to sexual assault: Mumbai POCSO court

The post Do courts still see marriage as resolution for rape? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over 800 women farmers and university students expressed shock and dismay in an open letter to the Chief Justice of India S. A. Bobde on January 14, 2021 for his comments that allegedly undermined women’s participation in the farmers movement.

All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC) and ASHA member Kavitha Kurunganti called the Supreme Court’s hearings and orders “controversial, unacceptable and unaccepted in various ways.”

They were upset by the Court’s comments on January 11 and January 12 stating that women and old people should be sent back and not have to participate in present protests.

The women farmers and leaders said that the Court, in saying this, was disrespectful of the fact that women are major stakeholders in agriculture. They said the comment denies women their agency and mocks the long-standing struggle of women engaged in farm work to be recognised as farmers.

“One of the important points of concern is the paternalism and patriarchy reflected in observations/orders with regard to women farmers. We urge the respected institution of the Supreme Court to recognise and appreciate the agency of women in this matter,” said Kuruganti who also leads the farmers’ Unions delegation on the Minimum Support Price (MSP) issue.

Similarly, MA student and Youth for Swaraj National Council Member Amandeep, said that women are the heart and soul of the Kisan Andolan and undermining their role and agency is extremely disgraceful. As a person working on-ground in the protest from early days, Amandeep said women are actively involved in organising speeches, meetings, conducting press briefings, arranging and providing medication and cooking along with their male counterparts at the protest sites.

“[They are also] taking care of farms and their households in villages, providing the protest sites on borders of Delhi with the logistical support – rations, blankets and other required commodities and also managing and running hundreds of protest sites within their states,” said Amandeep.

Further, Youth for Swaraj National Cabinet member and Critical Thinking and Liberal Arts Diploma student Jahanvi said that the protest site has emerged as a space representing gender equity and empowerment rather than simply a space of resistance and dissent against the farm laws. Jahanvi has been virtually supporting and mobilising support for the Farmers’ Protest.

“Such comments are completely unacceptable. It will be deeply appreciated if the august institution of the Supreme Court is not a witness to such remarks,” she said.

The full letter written by women leaders and students may be viewed below:

Related:

Women Famers still struggling for recognition
Khalistani, anti-farmer elements have infiltrated protests: Centre to SC
Victory for farmers! SC suspends the implementation of three Farm Laws
Centre to SC: Blames Unions, claims farmers happy, mum on absence of consultation
SC stays farms laws, but farmer leaders dig their heels in
Why are SHG women struggling with NPAs?
73.2% Of Rural Women Workers Are Farmers, But Own 12.8% Land Holdings

The post Women farmers, students write open letter against SC’s comment on women farmers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On November 16, a Bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde commented, “We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions” while hearing a habeas corpus plea filed for the release of Kerala journalist, Siddique Kappan, who was arrested while he was proceeding to Hathras to cover the alleged rape and murder of a 19-year-old Dalit woman.

LiveLaw reported that the top court agreed to issue notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government but told the petitioners that they might be directed to approach the High Court. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioners Kerala Union of Working Journalists (KUWJ). The matter has been adjourned to November 20.

Earlier, the bench headed by CJI which also comprised Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian had, on October 12, adjourned the Habeas Corpus petition asking the petitioners to approach the Allahabad High Court. The apex court had also asked the petitioner to file an amended petition.

Today, the CJI asked Senior Advocate Sibal as to why the amended petition had not been filed yet. The CJI also asked Sibal, “We are not on the merits of the case. Why can’t you go to the High Court?”

Mr. Kapil Sibal submitted that the amended petition cannot be filed until they get the opportunity to meet Siddique Kappan in jail. Mr. Sibal responded that as Kappan was not allowed to meet anyone and was in jail, he could not go to the High Court. Further, an Affidavit had also been filed in this regard.

SabrangIndia had reported that on October 29, the KUWJ had moved the Supreme Court for an interim direction on permission for regular interview over video conferencing of journalist, Siddique Kappan, with his family members and lawyers.

On October 5, 2020, Siddique Kappan, two Campus Front of India members and their driver were arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police for promoting enmity between different religious groups and were booked under sedition laws, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act.  

Following his arrest, the Kerala Union of Working Journalists (KUWJ) had filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court challenging Kappan’s custody. The KUWJ argued that the arrest was unconstitutional.

On November 13, a Mathura Court rejected the bail applications of three accused on grounds that the allegations against them are grave in nature.  

Related:

Hathras arrest: Union moves SC to allow journalist to talk to family, lawyers
Hathras case: Mathura court rejects bail plea of two CFI members and driver
UP Police arrest Muslim journalist, 3 others near Hathras for carrying ‘suspicious literature’

The post We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions: Chief Justice of India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post MPs submit petition for Impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra appeared first on SabrangIndia.