On Monday, the SC is scheduled to hear the petition. This action is being taken at a time when the Election Commission has commenced deliberating on the petition submitted by Ajit Pawar, who is seeking to establish the party’s name and election symbol.

According to insiders, the party is attempting to compel the speaker to resolve the disqualification case they filed in response to Supreme Court orders requiring him to provide a timeline for the resolution of the disqualification petitions lodged against chief minister Eknath Shinde and his party MLAs who defected from the Shiv Sena and allied with the BJP in June 2022 in order to form a new government.

“On September 24, Maharashtra president Jayant Patil submitted a writ petition to the Supreme Court on behalf of our party, the NCP, which is headed by Sharad Pawar. An NCP insider stated, “We have requested directives from the speaker, who has remained inactive for more than three months since our initial petition for disqualification was presented to him on July 2.”

Three petitions have been submitted by the NCP seeking the disqualification of dissident MLAs. The initial petition was directed at nine MLAs, one of whom was Ajit Pawar; the second petition targeted twenty MLAs; and the third petition targeted eleven MLAs. “The purpose of the petition is to accelerate our legal proceedings, as we are concerned that the speaker’s decision may be swayed in favor of the Ajit faction.” “This will enable us to quickly approach the SC and have them disqualified in the event that the speaker rules against us,” he continued.

Additionally, the NCP faction, led by Ajit Pawar, has submitted a caveat to the highest court. This was verified by Praful Patel, the working national president of the faction led by Ajit. “Along with the petition they filed, we have also submitted a caveat requesting that the court refrain from issuing any orders until we present our case,” he explained.

ALSO READ : In EC’s ‘who’s genuine NCP’ argument, Ajit Pawar claims maximum support; Sharad Pawar’s counsel calls him “imaginary.”

The group commanded by Ajit holds the belief that they will face no repercussions. “It is common knowledge that the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case of Shiv Sena vs. Eknath Shinde within the speaker’s jurisdiction.” “That means the same will happen to our case,” an insider from the faction led by Ajit said, adding, “At most, the apex court will request a ruling from Narwekar within a reasonable time frame; elections could take place at any point next year.”

On Monday, the Election Commission of India (ECI) will conduct its second hearing regarding a petition submitted by the NCP dissident faction, which seeks to assert ownership over the party’s name and symbol.

The post Sharad Pawar-led NCP asks Supreme Court to punish rebel MLAs appeared first on Republic Aeon.

A day after asking the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to explain why the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was not charged in the Delhi excise policy case, the Supreme Court clarified that it had no intention of implicating anyone. The bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti stated that the explanation was requested in relation to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as a legal query.

“We want to clarify that our query was not to implicate anyone. Can B or C be prosecuted if, according to the prosecution, the beneficiary is A, but A is not being prosecuted? In this context, the query was posed,” Justice Khanna said while hearing AAP leader Manish Sisodia’s bail application.

The clarification came after Sisodia’s attorney, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, informed the court that the media was distorting the question. Singhvi added that the court’s inquiry “appears to be the basis for making AAP a political party.”

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju stated, “I only told the media that the innocent will not be harassed and the guilty will not be spared.”

Wednesday, the Supreme Court directed the federal anti-money laundering agency to explain why the AAP was not charged in the case in which, among others, former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia is on trial. According to the agency, the AAP is the primary beneficiary of the alleged irregularities in the Delhi excise policy for 2021-22.

The bench stated, “We require clarification on the issue that Sisodia is cited as one of the beneficiaries in relation to the money laundering offense. Your entire argument is that the political party benefited from this. However, they are not charged. How would you respond?”

The court’s question baffled both parties, as Sisodia did not argue this point. The court informed the attorney, “He (Sisodia) has not raised this issue. We have addressed you directly. Regardless, you must respond by tomorrow.”

Also read this:Sanjay Singh’s father: “They didn’t find any basis…arrested him”

In February, the CBI apprehended Sisodia in connection with the excise policy, and in March, the ED did the same.

The post On ‘why AAP not an accused’ query, a clarification from Supreme Court appeared first on Republic Aeon.

According to the poll, 36.01% of the people are from the Extremely Backward Classes (EBC), 27.12% are from the Backward Classes, 15.52% are from the Upper Castes, 19.65% are from Scheduled Castes, and 1.68% are from Scheduled Tribes. Out of the people who belong to the Backward Classes, 14.26% are Yadavs, 4.27% are Kushwahas, and 2.87% are Kurmi.

In Bihar last year, the ruling Janata Dal (United) and the Rashtriya Janata Dal led the call for the study. They did this to try to get more reservations for backward classes because the current quotas don’t match the number of people in these groups.

Since then, parties in India, including the Congress, have backed the demand. They hope that a list of castes will be the key to undoing the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) gains in the backward classes and preventing religious divisions before the 2024 national elections.

There were two parts to the survey: from January 7th to 21st and from Aprilth to Augustth. It looked at things like caste, employment, schooling, marital status, land holdings, and property ownership.

In August, chief minister Nitish Kumar said that data from the poll was being analyzed to get a full picture of how different castes are doing in terms of their jobs and money. He made it clear that there was no reason to hold up the process and that the poll was done because it hadn’t been done at the national level before.

In order for the study to be truly national, the opposition group Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) has been calling for it. People in Bihar, India, were angry at the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) because the Union government stepped in during the hearing of appeals against the Patna high court’s decision to go ahead with the poll.

The Union government told the Supreme Court in August that the survey has “ramifications.” At the same time, the BJP said it supported the survey and that Bihar’s previous National Democratic Alliance government had approved it before Kumar ended the Janata Dal (United)’s alliance with the BJP last year.

In August, the Supreme Court said that there would be no interim orders or stays on the high court’s decision until it was sure that the study was wrong.

People who signed the petition against the poll said it was too much like a census, which can only be done by the Union government. They also said that asking about caste, religion, and job for the poll violated people’s right to privacy and that there was no way to keep this information safe.

The high court said that the Union government is the only one that can do the census. However, it did say that state governments could collect data for welfare programs and affirmative action.

Kumar talked about the socio-economic study that was done along with the census in 2011 and said that they tried to get the data made public but were turned down. Besides that, he said that the census was over. Kumar said that everyone agreed that the caste poll should be done. He has made the case that the practice is necessary and important to advance the cause of social justice.

ALSO READ:Two Pakistani terrorists slain in Kupwara, J&K

Youth For Equality, an NGO, said that the Bihar government’s poll went against the Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench decision in the Puttaswamy case. That decision said that a state can only do something that can affect a person’s privacy if it is allowed by law. According to the lawsuit, the state government ran the whole thing through an executive order.

The post Bihar shares data from a caste survey that shows 36.01% of the population is EBC. appeared first on Republic Aeon.

This is the first time that data on case disposition will be available with detailed charts and graphs on NJDG, a flagship initiative under the eCourts mission that previously only contained data pertaining to trial courts and high courts.

A Supreme Court press release stated, “Now we have all three levels of Indian judiciary on the NJDG portal…The Supreme Court of India’s case-related statistics, including institution, pendency and disposition of cases, case types, and year-by-year breakdown, are accessible at the press of a button.

“A commendable action by the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud ji. Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted on X, formerly Twitter, that this use of technology will increase transparency and improve the justice delivery system in the nation.

As the court convened for the day, the CJI proclaimed to the lawyers in the courtroom and those connected online, “Today marks a historic event that will ensure the court’s work is transparent.”

On the Supreme Court’s website, monthly information regarding the total number of pending cases, disposition rates, and the number of pending cases before five-judge, seven-judge, and nine-judge benches was previously available. It lacked diagrams or charts depicting the length of time required to dispose of cases, along with comparable figures from previous years. Now, all citizens will have access to these data for research or any other purpose.

Currently, the Supreme Court has 64,989 registered cases (both civil and criminal) and 15,512 unregistered cases (where attorneys have yet to rectify filing defects). This will be a variable number that is periodically updated. In addition, the Supreme Court’s webpage on the NJDG portal will provide real-time data on the number of cases filed each month and the monthly disposition rate. Similarly, it will include information on the filing and disposition of cases by the highest court on an annual basis, in order to promote the highest court’s accountability.

While introducing how to navigate the data on NJDG, the CJI defended the judiciary against criticism over lengthy vacations by stating, “We have graphs to show the effect of vacations, as in July there were 5,500 cases disposed of compared to 3,500 cases instituted.”

The CJI stated that there were approximately 100 cases that had been outstanding in the highest court for more than 20 years (prior to the year 2000). “This gives the CJI a data tool to reorganize work so we can dispose of the oldest cases,” CJI Chandrachud said, adding that he will form special benches to handle these cases.

On the NJDG, any citizen can determine which cases have been resolved and which are still unresolved, as well as the nature of these pending cases, such as civil or criminal appeals, writ petitions, suo motu cases, contempt, transfer, or review petitions, etc.

The Supreme Court’s decision to upload its data to NJDG comes one day after the Union cabinet approved the infusion of 7,210 crore for the third phase of the eCourts mission, which is being led by the e-committee of the Supreme Court, which is presided by the CJI.

Under this phase, the government intends to digitize all court records, including legacy documents and pending cases, at an estimated cost of 2,038.40 crore for a total of approximately 3,108 billion documents. The initiative also includes the migration of the data storage facility in courts to cloud technology, providing 25 petabytes of cloud storage at a cost of approximately 1,205.20 crore.

The third phase aims to improve the digital infrastructure of courts by establishing 2,500 new modern, virtual-friendly courts, 1,150 virtual courts, and 4,400 eSewa kendras in all court complexes from which citizens who are not tech-savvy can access virtual courts and a variety of judicial services online, such as e-filing and e-payment of court fees.

ALSO READ : Rishi Sunak: ‘I and my family…’ in UK parliament on G20, PM Modi.

According to a press release from the Press Information Bureau, “The main objective of eCourts Phase-III is to create a unified technology platform for the judiciary, which will provide a seamless and paperless interface between the courts, litigants, and other stakeholders.”

The post Supreme Court’s real-time case data on Judicial Data Grid appeared first on Republic Aeon.

The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated, “We are not inclined to interfere with the high court’s order under Article 136 of the Constitution, especially since she has been in custody for 620 days.”

The Court also noted the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) regarding the granting of bond, which states, “Provided that a person under 16 years of age, a woman, or a sick or infirm person may be released on bail if the special court so orders.”

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the Delhi high court’s order on the grounds that investigations revealed her “active involvement” in money laundering proceeds of crime not only as the wife of Sanjay Chandra, but also as a director in several companies located in the Cayman Islands, Singapore, and Mauritius that were used to launder the money collected from innocent homebuyers who invested in Unitech housing projects.

In order to assuage the concerns of the ED, the bench imposed additional conditions for Preeti’s parole, including that she not leave the NCR region, report to the investigating officer every two weeks, and not dispose of property without the special PMLA court’s permission.

Preeti’s counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, informed the court that she had already renounced her foreign citizenship and applied for Indian citizenship. He noted that the Indian government should be requested to expedite her citizenship application because, if she loses her current citizenship, she will be rendered stateless.

In its decree, the Delhi high court ruled that Preeti must renounce her citizenship in the Dominican Republic, a nation with no extradition treaty with India.

The Supreme Court instructed Sibal, “You must renounce your citizenship.” We are aware of the amount of money that has left the country for the Cayman Islands.”

Interestingly, CJI Chandrachud was a member of the bench that ordered a forensic audit of the Unitech group, which revealed that the promoters of Unitech unlawfully diverted homebuyer funds abroad.

To afford Indian authorities time to process her request for Indian citizenship, however, “The application (for citizenship) shall be processed in accordance with the law.” The deadline for her to renounce her citizenship of the Dominican Republic has been extended by two weeks, the court ruled.

Sibal argued that the crime for which Preeti Chandra is incarcerated carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison. She was detained on October 4, 2021, but the indictment has not yet been filed. In this scenario, he stated that there was no chance of the trial commencing shortly, so she is eligible to remain out on bail.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), represented by additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, presented the court with evidence indicating that the Unitech group diverted Rs.380 crore from the money entrusted by homebuyers and stashed it abroad through a web of companies. From this sum, Rs. 107.4 billion was transmitted to a company called Prakausali via its holding company, Mayfair, with Preeti Chandra serving as the director of both firms.

Preeti has also been accused of co-founding, supervising, and managing a front company named Trikar Group with her spouse. Between 2015 and 2018, a total of Rs.401 crore was allegedly transferred into Unitech’s Indian entities from the foreign accounts of Trikar Group in the Cayman Islands, Singapore, and Mauritius, and a quantity of Rs.401 crore was deposited into Unitech’s Indian accounts.

In response to ED’s submissions, the Supreme Court stated, “There is abundant evidence against her.” But what concerns us is that the utmost sentence is seven years, she has already spent over 600 days in custody, and the fact that she is a woman may lessen the severity of Section 45. With over 7,000 pages of documents and hundreds of witnesses to be examined, her sentence will be completed by the time the trial concludes.

ASG Raju stated that the delay in the investigation was attributable to the fact that the evidence against the accused was dispersed across several countries.

In response to his request, the bench stated that a woman’s gender does not automatically entitle her to bail, as the prosecutor felt that this order could be used as a precedent in other cases to obtain bail.

Also read this:Three IPOs to hit Dalal Street tomorrow, total fund raising over Rs 1,600 crore

Preeti was detained in connection with the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate in 2018 against the former promoters of Unitech, Sanjay and Amit Chandra. In March 2021, she was apprehended at the airport while attempting to escape the country.

The post SC upholds bail for Preeti Chandra; restricts her from leaving NCR appeared first on Republic Aeon.

Beginning on Wednesday, a five-judge constitution committee led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud will conduct daily hearings.

The bench, which also consists of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, set the deadline for written submissions and convenience compilations as July 27 on July 11.

The five-judge bench stated that hearings will be conducted on a daily basis, except on Mondays and Fridays, which are days when the supreme court hears diverse cases. On these days, only new petitions for admission hearings are considered; regular matters are not heard.

It appointed two solicitors, one from the petitioners’ side and one from the government’s side, to prepare a convenience compilation and file it by July 27, and made it plain that no documents will be accepted after that date. A convenience note provides the court with an overview of the entire case so that it can swiftly comprehend the facts.

It had stated that the Centre’s affidavit regarding the state of Jammu and Kashmir after the 5 August 2019 notification repealing Article 370 would have no consequence on the constitutional issue to be decided by the five-judge bench.

On that day, the former state of Jammu and Kashmir was divested of its special status and split into two union territories.

Also read this:Haryana unrest: Gurugram mob torches shops, violence continues

Several petitions challenging the repeal of Article 370 and the 2019 Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, which divided the former state into Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, were referred to a Constitution tribunal in 2019.

The post SC to hear batch of pleas challenging repeal of Article 370 starting today appeared first on Republic Aeon.

The appeal was filed precisely one week after the high court rejected Gandhi’s bid to regain his Lok Sabha seat, finding that the Congress leader “breached modesty” and that his offence involved “moral turpitude.” The appeal was lodged on Saturday morning, but a hearing date has not yet been set. Next week, Gandhi’s attorneys are anticipated to mention the appeal for an expedited hearing.

The Congress leader’s appeal reached the apex court after his earlier petitions were denied by the session court and the high court.

Gandhi urged the highest court to suspend his conviction immediately so he could regain his status as a member of parliament, arguing that the conviction order would stifle free speech, free expression, free thought, and free statement.

“It would contribute to the systematic, repeated emasculation of democratic institutions and the resulting suffocation of democracy, which would be extremely detrimental to India’s political climate and future,” he said.

ALSO READ : Daily brief: Delhi L-G’s big claim on Kejriwal-led flood control panel

The order from the highest court indicated that Gandhi’s exclusion from Parliament will persist.

The conviction and two-year prison sentence disqualify Gandhi from entering either House of Parliament for eight years. However, this can be reversed if he can convince a superior court to overturn or suspend the conviction.

The post Today, Supreme Court will hear Rahul Gandhi’s appeal against Gujarat HC’s “Modi surname” ruling. appeared first on Republic Aeon.

A bench of justices composed of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that the Court is not predisposed to hear the petition against a comedy programme.

“What is it? Why should we prioritise this over a stand-up comedy show? Come up with something better,” the judge told petitioner advocate Farhat Warsi, who appeared in person.

Warsi argued that Bassi insulted the advocate community on his programme ‘Bas Kar Bassi’ and that action should be taken against him.

The bench, however, remained indisposed. “Allow other solicitors to handle themselves. You are not required to defend the entire neighbourhood. You look after yourself,” it said to Warsi.

The court went on to state in its order, “We find no merit in the writ petition.” Therefore, it is disregarded.”

Warsi’s petition referenced a YouTube video in which ‘Bas Kar Bassi’ narrated his early years as a law graduate and the experience of being a youthful lawyer.

Also read this:The Crowded Room:Tom Holland trends on Twitter with 96,000 tweets for gay sex scene from The Crowded Room

According to the petition, Bassi portrayed the lawyer community in a negative light, requesting that the highest court take note of the “humiliation”

The post SC junks plea against stand-up comedian Anubhav Singh Bassi appeared first on Republic Aeon.

In response to the SEBI’s request to the Supreme Court for a 6-month extension to complete its investigation into the Hidenburg allegations leveled against the Adani Group, the conglomerate led by Gautam Adani stated that it is fully cooperating with the investigation and that the application by the Indian market regulator contains no inferences of wrongdoing.

In its research, Hindenburg Research, an American short-seller, accused Adani Group on February 25 of financial violations. As a consequence, the market value of the Adani Group decreased by more than USD 140 billion.

Also read this:231 Indians evacuated from Sudan under Operation Kaveri land in Delhi

The Supreme Court ordered the Securities and Exchange Board of India to investigate the incident within two months and establish a six-person expert team to examine the protection of Indian investors on March 2. Sebi filed a request for a deadline extension on Saturday, citing intricate transactions involving the conglomerate’s listed, unlisted, and offshore entities that require a more thorough investigation.

The post ‘No conclusions of wrongdoing’: Adani Group reacts to Sebi requesting SC for 6-month probe extension appeared first on Republic Aeon.

The bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta what actions have been taken in response to the filing of FIRs and remarked that solely filing complaints will not solve the problem of hate speech. Mehta informed the court that 18 FIRs related to hate speech have been filed. In defiance of Mehta and Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj’s objections, the case was scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday.

In October 2022, the supreme court ordered the police commanders of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand to take “immediate” suo moto action against hate speech offenders by filing criminal cases without waiting for formal complaints. The bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy expressed distress over hate speech, describing it as “extremely disturbing” and asking, “What have we reduced religion to?”

Also Read | “Corrupt Coming Together On One Stage”: PM Modi

The court had also warned that “any reluctance to comply with this directive will be considered a contempt of court, and appropriate action will be taken against the insubordinate officers.” While India lacks a formal legal framework for dealing with hate speech, Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code are invoked to define hate speech in a broad sense.

The post Abjuring hate speech fundamental requisite for maintenance of communal harmony: SC appeared first on Republic Aeon.