HC allows Didihat candidate to contest panchayat polls
A division bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra passed the order on Friday while hearing Deupa's appeal. The returning officer had dismissed his nomination for leaving the criminal record section blank. Deupa argued that the form format created by the State Election Commission (SEC) went against Section 9 of the State Panchayati Raj Rules and claimed he didn't need to fill the section as he had already been acquitted in the cases.
During the hearing, the court asked about election symbol allocation. The SEC replied that nomination papers had already been verified and ballot papers were sent for printing. It also said that forms not filled as per the rules were rejected.
The court expressed concern that ballot papers had been printed while several election-related petitions were still pending. It further noted that printing before allocating symbols and considering candidates' symbol preferences raised questions.
Deupa had earlier approached a single bench, which dismissed his petition. He then appealed to the division bench, which stayed the rejection of his nomination, saying it was "against the rules."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
‘2006 Blast Acquittals Over Seal For RDX, Minor Details': Why SC Agreed To Hear Maharashtra's Plea
Maharashtra Plea Against HC 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts Case Acquittals: The Maharashtra government said the recovery of RDX was disbelieved on a "hyper-technical ground" The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday agreed to hear on Thursday the Maharashtra government 's appeal challenging the Bombay High Court (HC) judgment acquitting all 12 accused. On July 11, 2006, seven blasts within a span of 11 minutes in the first-class compartments of Western Railway (WR) local trains left 189 dead and several injured. The MCOCA court in September 2015 convicted 12 of the 13 arrested in the case. Kamal Ansari (now dead), Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, Naveed Hussain Khan and Asif Khan were sentenced to death, while Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim Ansari, Mohammed Majid Mohammed Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh and Zameer Ahmed Rehman Shaikh were sentenced to life imprisonment. The Bombay High Court (HC) on Monday acquitted all 12 accused, saying the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case and it was 'hard to believe they committed the crime". The Maharashtra government has appealed against the HC judgment on grounds that the recovery of RDX from an accused was disbelieved on a 'hyper-technical ground" that the seized explosives were not sealed with a lac seal. Earlier in the day, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on behalf of the state government, mentioned the plea before an apex court bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai and sought an urgent hearing. The court agreed to hear it on July 24. The state government, in its appeal, has raised several serious objections to the high court's order of acquittal. The plea has asserted that due procedural safeguards under Section 23(2) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) were observed, including proper sanctioning by senior officers like prosecution witness (PW) no. 185 Anami Roy. It said the high court overlooked the validity of these approvals despite no substantial contradiction in the prosecution's evidence. #WATCH | Mumbai: On Bombay High Court acquitting all 12 people in relation to 2006 Mumbai train bombings, Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis says, 'The verdict of the Bombay High Court is very shocking and we will challenge it in the Supreme Court." — ANI (@ANI) July 21, 2025 Lac seal for RDX: What Maharashtra government said in plea The plea has assailed the high court's rejection of the recovery of 500 grams of RDX from one of the accused on the ground that it lacked a lac seal. The plea has said that RDX, being highly inflammable, was not sealed for safety reasons and the recovery was duly sanctioned and documented. 'That, the Hon'ble High Court has disbelieved the recovery of 500 gms of RDX from Accused No. 1 on a hyper-technical ground that the RDX which was seized was not sealed with a lac seal. It will be pertinent to note that the same was not sealed with a lac seal because RDX is an inflammable substance. 'It is pertinent to note that the High Court records that the sanctioning authority for explosive substances has been examined by the prosecution. However, the Hon'ble High Court has not found any infirmities in the evidence of PW 26, who is the sanctioning authority under the Explosive Substances Act for seizure of RDX from Accused No. 1. Therefore, the High Court has erred in disbelieving the recovery of RDX from Accused No. 1," the plea has said. Minute details in confession: What Maharashtra government said in plea It has also disputed the high court's dismissal of the confession of an accused for lacking minute details, such as the date of arrival of the Pakistani co-conspirators in India, the description of the six Pakistanis and information like whether they had trained in terrorist camps. 'The entire confessional statement has been disbelieved which is an unacceptable conclusion," the plea has said, adding that omissions regarding the identities and origins of the Pakistani co-conspirators do not invalidate the overall confession. The appeal also challenges the high court's disregard of the recovery of detonators and explosive granules from another accused, pointing out that these items cannot be easily procured or planted, and their evidentiary value should not have been dismissed over technicalities. The petition says the high court failed to address the validity of the convictions under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and relevant provisions of the Explosive Substances Act. It says the high court ignored key findings and legal interpretations from previous landmark judgments. The plea addresses the defence's contention that the accused did not meet the definition of 'continuing unlawful activity" under the MCOCA due to earlier offences being punishable by less than three years. top videos View all Citing Supreme Court precedents, the plea says the conspiracy and scale of the attack clearly fall under MCOCA provisions. With PTI Inputs About the Author News Desk The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk More tags : 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts 2006 Mumbai Train Bomb Blast Bombay High Court Devendra Fadnavis supreme court view comments Location : Mumbai, India, India First Published: July 23, 2025, 13:20 IST News cities '2006 Blast Acquittals Over Seal For RDX, Minor Details': Why SC Agreed To Hear Maharashtra's Plea Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
SC stays Bombay HC order asking MMRDA to deposit full ₹1,169 crore arbitral award to Ambani's metro JV
Advt Advt By , ET Bureau The Supreme Court has stayed a Bombay High Court order directing the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority ( MMRDA ) to deposit the entire arbitral award of ₹1,169 crore won by Mumbai Metro One Private Ltd (MMOPL), a subsidiary of Anil Ambani 's Reliance Infrastructure, in the apex court said the HC's direction to deposit the full award amount in favour of MMOPL will remain stayed, subject to MMRDA depositing 50 per cent of the awarded amount in the High Court.A bench led by Justice Manoj Mishra sought a response from MMOPL on MMRDA's appeal against the HC's July 10 order, which refused the latter's request for an unconditional stay on the arbitral top court further clarified that the pendency of the proceedings will not preclude the HC from continuing with the hearing of the application filed by MMRDA under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996. If the HC finally decides the application in the meantime, this interim order will abide by the HC's General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state entity, argued that the HC's condition to deposit the entire awarded amount at this stage would be unduly harsh. Therefore, it was a fit case to modify the condition imposed by the High Court while granting interim relief to the Ambani in its appeal, submitted that the HC had erred in not granting interim relief, given that the arbitral award was patently illegal and perverse, beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, in breach of principles of natural justice, and passed without application of mind or any evidentiary basis.A majority decision of the three-member arbitral tribunal in 2023 awarded ₹992 crore plus interest to MMOPL, a special purpose vehicle (SPV) between Reliance Infrastructure (74 per cent stake) and MMRDA (26 per cent stake). The award was passed in 2023 and corrected in 2024. The JV operates Mumbai's first metro line on the Versova-Andheri-Ghatkopar Maharashtra government had in June 2006 awarded the Metro One Project to the consortium of Reliance Infrastructure and Veolia Transport SA (now Transdev Ile-de-France).Multiple disputes arose between the parties over development, design, engineering, financing, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance of the mass rapid transit system, as well as delays in project completion. The metro rail project was delayed by over two years. MMOPL claimed project costs increased from ₹2,356 crore to ₹4,321 crore, which MMRDA the Ambani firm invoked the arbitration clause under the Concession Agreement.
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Was Varma notice in Rajya Sabha just submitted or was it admitted?
NEW DELHI: Was the notice for the motion of removal of Allahabad HC Justice Yashwant Varma only "submitted" or was it "admitted" as well. The seemingly technical issue goes to the heart of the fast-paced events that led to the resignation of Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday evening. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It acquires significance because a determination would decide whether the RS Chairman would have a role in the choice of the three members of the investigation panel which, under the Constitution, would examine the veracity of the charges against Justice Varma. Dhankhar is learnt to have earned the annoyance of the govt and the governing coalition by acknowledging the notice given by 63 opposition MPs to seek the launch of proceedings for the HC judge's ouster. Sources termed it as a "breach-of-faith" issue by pointing out that the govt had already announced its decision that the process should start in Lok Sabha and had taken the first step by getting 145 MPs from all parties to sign the notice which was submitted to LS Speaker Om Birla on Monday morning. However, Dhankhar sidestepped this, and the RS notice had signatures of only opposition members. Although technically correct, the decision flew in the face of govt's desire to make the proceedings against Justice Varma an all-party concern. On Monday afternoon in RS, Dhankhar cited the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to say that in a situation where such a notice is given in both Houses on the same day, "no committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the committee shall be constituted jointly by the speaker and the chairman". The ex-chairman said that the motion signed by 63 members "meets the numerical requirement of setting in motion a process for the removal of an HC judge" - reference to the stipulation that the motion for removal, in case of RS, needed to be signed by at least 50 members. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He stopped short of saying whether the motion has been admitted, but emphasised that the chairman or the speaker has no right to admit or reject if "a motion is presented on the same day in both the Houses". However, the 1968 Act doesn't mention such a provision. Dhankhar had directed the RS secretary general to take necessary steps. Sources, however, said the final call on the issue will now be that of the deputy chairperson, Harivansh, who started as the officiating chairman after President Droupadi Murmu accepted Dhankhar's resignation. "There is no certainty he would endorse what Dhankhar observed," said a source. "In any case, he has no special interest in matters concerning judiciary and is unlikely to diverge drastically from the speaker in the choice of the members of the inquiry panel," the source further said.
