In major rejig, 135 trial court judges transferred in Delhi
In a major reshuffle, a total of 135 trial court judges in the city have been transferred by an order of the Delhi High Court on Friday.
Among notable names are Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Courts, who was hearing the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi Riots, and Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts who was hearing other cases of murder, arson, and unlawful assembly linked to the riots.
While the former had been transferred to the Saket Court as an Additional Sessions Judge, the latter has been transferred to the Patiala House Court as a District Judge (Commercial Court). The larger conspiracy case has been pending for over four years and is at the stage of framing charges.
Special Judge Niyay Bindu of Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court has been transferred to the Dwarka Court in the capacity of an Additional Principal Judge (Family Court). In June 2024, she granted bail to former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case linked to the excise policy 'scam'.
Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO) Gomati Manocha of Patiala House Court, who recently accepted a closure report filed by the Delhi Police in a POCSO case against former BJP MP Brij Bhushan, has been transferred to Karkardooma Court as a District Judge.
Additional Sessions Judge Manisha Khurana Kakkar of the Saket Court has been transferred to Rouse Avenue Court as a Special Judge. She was hearing the trial against Aaftab Poonawala, who was arrested in 2022 for allegedly killing his live-in partner Shraddha Walkar and chopping her into pieces in Delhi.
Special Judge Amitabh Rawat of Rouse Avenue Court, who earlier heard the larger conspiracy case linked to the Delhi riots, has been transferred to the Delhi High Court in the capacity of Joint Registrar (judicial).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
12 hours ago
- India Gazette
Delhi HC grants interim bail to woman suffering from cancer
New Delhi [India], June 7 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has granted interim bail to a woman whose condition is serious due to cancer. She is an accused in a drug case registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch under the NDPS Act. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted petitioner Jyoti interim bail until June 15. The High Court will hear the application on June 13. While issuing notice to the state, the bench has asked the Investigation Officer to verify the medical documents and a status report be filed within 3 days. Keeping in view the extreme and terminal medical condition of the applicant and in view of the humanitarian medical crisis which has arisen, the court allowed the application seeking interim bail. 'The applicant is enlarged on interim bail on medical grounds till.15.06.2025, subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs . 1,00,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent/Trial Court,' Justice Gedela ordered on June 4. Petitioner is an accused in an NDPS Act and was granted interim bail on May 19, 2025 till June 5 on the medical grounds in view of her condition. However the trial court refused to extend the interim bail as her regular bail is pending before the High court. Thereafter, an application seeking interim bail was moved before the High Court. Senior advocate Amit Chaddh,a counsel for the applicant, submitted that as per the Diagnosis Report dated 02.06.2025 of the hospital, the applicant Jyoti, aged 39 years, is suffering from Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia. This is an uncommon and rare kind of cancer. It was further submitted that on an application seeking further extension of the interim bail, on 04.06.2025, the Sessions Judge was not inclined to extend it further and had rejected the interim bail application holding that he had no jurisdiction, since the regular bail plea is pending before this Court. (ANI)
The Hindu
13 hours ago
- The Hindu
Lawyers to boycott judicial work on June 9 in protest against digital courts shift
Lawyers across Delhi's district courts will abstain from all judicial works including court proceedings on June 9 in protest against the relocation of all digital courts to the Rouse Avenue Court complex. The move comes after Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya on Friday inaugurated 34 digital courts, aimed at reducing paperwork and improving speed as well as efficiency. The courts are dedicated to handling cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mostly deals with cheque bounce cases. These digital courts include nine from Dwarka, seven from Tis Hazari, six from Saket, five from Karkardooma Court, four from Rohini and three from Patiala House. In what it described as 'unrest' among the lawyers, the Coordination Committee of all districts court bar associations of Delhi passed a resolution on Friday. 'Coordination Committee has resolved to abstain from judicial work in all Delhi District Courts on Monday, June 9, 2025,' stated the circular. The Aam Aadmi Party government approved the construction of a new district court complex at Rouse Avenue in August 2024 at an estimated cost of ₹427 crore, aimed at streamlining judicial processes and improving accessibility.
The Print
a day ago
- The Print
Efforts should be made by police to use tech tools for fairness, efficacy: Delhi HC
In the present case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act, certain contraband was recovered from a vehicle in transit after a chase without any video recording. The court observed that in absence of independent witnesses and videography, there is an added duty upon the court to scrutinise the evidence more carefully. New Delhi, Jun 7 (PTI) While technology enhances transparency of police investigation and ideally every effort should be made to use such aids, adopting the use of video or audio recording might not be feasible in some cases, the Delhi High Court has said while dismissing the bail plea of an accused in a narcotics case. The petitioner, who was allegedly found to be in possession of 10.860 kg of poppy straw, argued that there was a violation of provisions pertaining to entry, search, seizure and arrest under the NDPS Act. Subsequently, several more sacks of the contraband were allegedly recovered at his instance by the police. His counsel argued that the contraband was recovered in a crowded place but no sincere effort was made to join the public persons or to videograph the search and seizure proceedings conducted at the spot. In the judgement passed on June 5 dismissing the bail plea, Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that although there was admittedly no independent public witness of recovery or any photography/videography, it was at best a 'key irregularity' and there was nothing on record at this stage to suggest that the petitioner was not guilty. 'The use of technology certainly enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness, and therefore, ideally, every effort should be made by the investigating agency to use technological means in aid of investigation. However, there may be situations where audio/video recording may not be feasible like the present case,' said the court. 'The absence of independent witnesses and the videography at best may be regarded as a key irregularity in a search and that would cast an added duty upon the court to scrutinise the evidence regarding the search more carefully,' it added. It noted that in the present case, there was information that contraband was being transported in a vehicle from Alwar, Rajasthan, to Azadpur in Delhi via Punjabi Bagh, and at the time when the petitioner and his co-accused were apprehended, they were shifting the contraband from the car to a motorcycle. The court said the period of the petitioner's custody since August 2023 or that the trial had commenced were by themselves not persuasive grounds for granting relief to the petitioner under the NDPS Act. PTI ADS RT RT This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
