During the hearing of Arvind Kejriwal's plea against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi Liquor Policy case, the Supreme Court emphasized that it cannot regard the Delhi Chief Minister as a habitual offender. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, while considering the request for interim bail, expressed disagreement with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's comparison of Kejriwal's case to others incarcerated, underscoring Kejriwal's position as an elected CM and the infrequency of elections held once every five years.
The Supreme Court has raised concerns about the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act's discrepancy in allowing abortions beyond 24 weeks in cases of foetal abnormalities but not for pregnancies resulting from minor rape or incest. The Court suggests that the legislature appears to prioritize the impact of a substantially abnormal foetus over the traumatic experience of rape on the pregnant person.
The woman was sentenced by Additional District Judge Gyanendra Tripathi to a prison term of 4 years, 6 months, and 8 days, totaling 1,653 days, mirroring the length of time the accused man spent incarcerated due to the false accusation. Furthermore, she has been ordered to pay a fine of approximately ₹5,88,822, which will be compensated to the accused.
Today, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for 21 days and instructed him to surrender on June 2, a day after the final phase of Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal walked out of jail later in the evening. The court also noted the Enforcement Directorate's delay in arresting him, pointing out that despite registering a case in August 2022, Kejriwal was arrested only in March.
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that the Chairman of a college's governing body cannot appoint a representative to take his place on the Selection Committee for the principal's appointment. The petitioner, holding an M.A., M.Ed., and Ph.D., worked as an Assistant Professor since 1989 and became a Professor in 2019. The Maharashtra College of Education advertised for a Principal position on November 29, 2021. The petitioner, meeting the criteria, applied and was chosen by the Selection Committee. However, the University rejected the appointment on July 26, 2022, due to the Chairman's absence during the Selection Committee meeting. The petitioner argued that the Selection Committee was legitimate according to the Government Resolution (GR) from May 10, 2019, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations.
A Delhi court on Wednesday denied Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's request for a 7-day interim bail in the excise policy case. Special Judge Kaveri Baweja of Rouse Avenue Courts issued the order and directed medical tests for Kejriwal, whose lawyer raised health concerns. Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 by the Enforcement Directorate for alleged involvement in a conspiracy related to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22, benefiting certain liquor sellers. Despite previous interim bail for campaigning, Kejriwal returned to jail on June 2. His regular plea will be heard on June 7.
The Delhi High Court stressed the importance of complete disclosure of incriminating evidence by the prosecution before charging the accused. The court emphasized that this disclosure is essential to ensure the accused has a fair chance to prepare their defense adequately. It highlighted the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which includes the concept of a speedy trial. The court warned against the prosecution introducing new documents unexpectedly during the trial, which could unfairly disadvantage the accused. It also mentioned that while corrections can be made later in the trial under specific legal provisions, this should not be used to compensate for missing evidence but only for genuine mistakes. This statement was made in response to the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) appeal challenging a trial court's decision to reject additional video evidence stored on Hard Disks.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a Judicial Magistrate does not take cognizance of an offence by ordering a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal cited the 1976 case "Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy," explaining that cognizance is only taken when a Magistrate proceeds under Chapter XV of CrPC, like Section 200. In this case, the Magistrate directed an investigation under Section 156(3) after reviewing the complaint and documents. The High Court had set aside this order, but the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court should not have interfered using its limited powers under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court restored the Magistrate's order for investigation.
On Monday, the Supreme Court instructed the Central government to convene a meeting of stakeholders to address the Delhi government's request for additional water supply from Himachal Pradesh via Haryana [Government of NCT of Delhi v. State of Haryana and ors]. This order was issued by a Vacation Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan after reviewing a petition from the Delhi government seeking directives for Haryana to facilitate water supply to the national capital from Himachal Pradesh."Why can't there be a joint meeting of all the stakeholders?" the Court inquired of Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta at the start of the hearing. SG Mehta responded that the matter is currently under consideration by the Upper Yamuna River Board. However, he also highlighted the issue of water wastage in Delhi. The Delhi government needs to control leakages. Water loss exceeds 52% due to the tanker mafia and other factors, he stated.
In the case of Bhavreen Kandhari v CD Singh and Ors. Delhi HC cites DCF for JNU tree violation, seeks explanation from Justice Jasmeet Singh. Court unaware of forest dept. clearance. The ruling pertains to a case on non-adherence to the Court's 2022 mandate, which mandates tree officers to justify each tree felling instance. Allegedly, despite this, 22 permissions were granted between May and August 2022. On August 31, 2023, the Delhi government assured the Court that no tree felling permits would be issued until the next hearing, except for essential projects, which will be reported to the Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that a tenant who lawfully entered a property but remains after their right to do so expires must compensate the landlord. Justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol directed Ashwini Bhanulal Desai to deposit Rs 5,15,05,512 within four weeks, based on an application by landlord Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF. The court noted the property is in central Kolkata and the landlord had been deprived of rent for a long period. The bench stated that the tenant had delayed payments and that landlords have a right to income from rented property. The dispute involved a lease agreement from 1991, with the tenant defaulting on rent since 2002. The tenant must deposit the amount or face legal consequences.
A Delhi court on Wednesday denied Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's request for a 7-day interim bail in the excise policy case. Special Judge Kaveri Baweja of Rouse Avenue Courts issued the order and directed medical tests for Kejriwal, whose lawyer raised health concerns. Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 by the Enforcement Directorate for alleged involvement in a conspiracy related to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22, benefiting certain liquor sellers. Despite previous interim bail for campaigning, Kejriwal returned to jail on June 2. His regular plea will be heard on June 7.
The Allahabad High Court highlighted that granting bail to one accused while denying it to another under similar circumstances, without clear justification, undermines public trust in the judiciary. Justice Krishan Pahal emphasized the need for consistency in judicial orders, noting that inconsistent rulings harm the perception of fairness and equality. The court stressed that such practices could suggest partiality or bias and violate the principle of equality before the law. The remarks came while granting anticipatory bail to Abhishek Yadav, who claimed parity with co-accused granted bail. The court found no distinguishing factors in Yadav's case compared to others and criticized the trial judge's inconsistent bail decisions, which lacked clear reasoning.
Grant of Bail by Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni in Heroin Possession Case- Rajashthan High Court* Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni granted bail to a man allegedly found in possession of 510 grams of heroin. In his decision, the court noted that the strict conditions typically required for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in this particular case. This determination was made because the accused-applicant presented substantial grounds that cast doubt on the prosecution's case against him. Consequently, the court concluded that the accused had sufficient basis to challenge the prosecution's claims, warranting the granting of bail.