Telangana HC quashes defamation case against CM Revanth Reddy
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
42 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Poverty prevents people from filing appeals, says Madras High Court; orders release of life convict citing parity
Observing that there are several reasons, including poverty, that prevent people from filing appeals before higher judicial forums, the Madras High Court has ordered the release of a convict in a dacoity-cum-murder case by according him the benefit of parity with his co-convicts, who had been released from prison by an order of the Supreme Court in 2018. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan concurred with the argument of advocate R. Sankarasubbu that if the convict Balu, alias D. Balasubramanian, had approached the top court along with the three co-convicts, there was every possibility of his sentence also having been reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The judges allowed a writ petition filed by the convict's wife Indira Gandhi, seeking the release of her husband on the ground of parity. They recorded the submission of Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak, who also did not dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court, in at least three cases, regarding the principle of extending parity to an unappealed convict. 'When the petitioner complains that her husband's constitutional right under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) had been violated, we cannot shrug off our duties and ask the petitioner to... prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court,' the judges wrote and pointed out that the criminal case was from the year 2002, and that more than two decades had passed since he was convicted. 'All that we are doing is performing our constitutional duty of rendering parity between A1, A2, A4 and the petitioner's husband. Our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide and they have been granted only to enable us to do justice. This court also has the inherent power and the jurisdiction, while dealing with situations as presented in the present case, to render justice and prevent manifest injustice,' the judges said. According to the prosecution, the convicts had robbed 4.7 kg of gold and 5.5 kg of silver from a jewellery shop after killing a person who was sleeping inside the shop. Though the petitioner's husband had not committed any overt act with respect to the murder, he too was convicted under Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code, which makes all members of a gang liable for punishment even if one of them had committed murder. Though the trial court had imposed only 10 years of imprisonment on the convicts, the High Court had enhanced their punishment to life imprisonment in 2010 while allowing a 2006 State appeal for enhancement of sentence. However, allowing a further appeal by three of the convicts, except the petitioner's husband, the Supreme Court had reduced their sentence to 10 years in 2018 and ordered their release. Hence, the petitioner had now approached the High Court, by way of a writ petition, seeking parity and obtained the relief.
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
CJI Gavai to look into issue of stray dogs in view of conflicting orders of SC
New Delhi [India], August 13 (ANI): Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Wednesday said he would examine the ongoing issue relating to community dogs, after an advocate mentioned the matter, saying different benches of the Supreme Court have issued conflicting matter relating to stray dogs was mentioned before a bench headed by the CJI for urgent listing, to which the CJI said, 'I will look into this."Advocate Nanita Sharma said two benches of the apex court have passed different orders on the stray dogs issue.'This is with regard to the community dogs issue… There is an earlier judgment of this court, of a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, which says there cannot be indiscriminate killing of canines and that compassion for all living beings has to be there," the lawyer was referring to the recent order passed by a bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala, where the court had ordered relocation of the stray dogs in Delhi to dog shelters and another order passed by a Justice JK Maheshwari-led bench in May 2024, whereby the petitions relating to the stray dog issue were relegated to the respective High Maheshwari had said, 'Under all circumstances, there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislation(s) in place".Sharma today mentioned the petition filed by an organisation named Conference for Human Rights (India), challenging a Delhi High Court's order in its PIL seeking directions for sterilisation and vaccination of community dogs in Delhi as per the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) August 2023, the High Court disposed of the PIL without issuing any specific directions, after recording satisfaction with the steps taken by the NGO challenged the High Court order in July 2024, and a bench headed by Justice Gavai issued notice on the August 11, a bench of Justices Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took a stern view of the stray dog menace and ordered the Delhi-NCR to start removing stray dogs from all localities within eight weeks and house them in dedicated dog shelters to be set up by civic said that all localities should be made free of stray dogs and there should not be any compromise, while making it clear that no captured animal will be released back on the also ordered contempt proceedings against any individual or organisation that attempts to obstruct the authorities from carrying out the capture drive. The order of the top court came on a suo motu proceedings initiated by it over a media report on the growing menace of stray dog attacks leading to the news report as 'very disturbing and alarming", the bench had said that day the news report revealed that the elderly and children were the most affected by rabies from dog bite incidents. (ANI)
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Uttar Pradesh court orders FIR against Union MoS for External Affairs Kirti Vardhan Singh, four others in land dispute case
A court in Uttar Pradesh's Gonda district has directed the police to register an FIR against Union Minister of State for External Affairs Kirti Vardhan Singh, his representative Rajesh Singh and three others in connection with an alleged land dispute case. According to officials, the order was issued on Monday (August 11, 2025) by Special Judge of the MP-MLA Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division) Apeksha Singh, who instructed Mankapur police station to lodge an FIR against Kirti Vardhan Singh, Rajesh Singh, Pinku Singh, Sahdev Yadav and Kanti Singh. The complainant, Ajay Singh, a resident of Bhitoura in the Mankapur area, had moved the court under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking registration of a case against the accused. Ajay Singh has alleged that land registered in the name of his wife Manisha Singh was fraudulently transferred again by influencing and luring the original seller, Bittan Devi, to execute a backdated sale deed in favour of Mithlesh Rastogi and Kanti Singh using a three-year-old stamp paper. He claimed that when he complained, the Superintendent of Police ordered an inquiry, which confirmed the allegations. Based on the SP's directions, police registered a case in 2024 against the seller and the buyers under relevant sections, but later filed a final report closing the matter. Ajay Singh said he objected to the closure, and in March 2025, the court set aside the final report and ordered further investigation, which is still underway. In the meantime, Rajesh Singh allegedly lodged a false case against Ajay Singh and his wife at the local police station in 2024. After the court's order for further investigation, Rajesh Singh allegedly used his political influence to harass the couple, they said. Through his driver Rinku Singh, he purportedly got another case registered against the couple under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and other sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, with the aim of pressuring them to settle the dispute. Ajay Singh alleged that since then, the accused have been threatening him to stop pursuing cases related to the disputed land and agree to a settlement, warning that his family would be killed if he refused. He said that despite repeated complaints to the police, no action was taken, prompting him to approach the court. Reacting to the development, Rajesh Singh, the Union Minister's representative, said he had come to know about the matter through the media and would comment only after receiving a copy of the court order.
