FIR Lodged Against Applicant Behind 'Dog Babu' Residence Certificate In Patna
A residence certificate was recently issued in rural Patna in favour of one four-legged 'dog babu', born to parents with similar canine nomenclature, prompting a red-faced administration to lodge an FIR against all persons concerned.
The certificate of residence was issued last week in Masaurhi circle, falling under the eponymous sub-division, apparently as part of a scramble for such documents during the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar.
Under the Bihar Right to Public Service Act, citizens can apply for a certificate of residence online and the same would be issued by the officials concerned after due verification.
Screenshots of the certificate, carrying a photograph of 'Dog babu', a stray canine, with parents named 'kutta babu' and 'kutiya devi', have gone viral on social media, with many people taking the opportunity to question why, instead of allowing such madness, the Election Commission was not accepting Aadhaar cards and ration cards, as suggested by the Supreme Court recently.
The district administration on Monday came out with a statement that the certificate, dated July 24, "was cancelled as soon as the matter came to light".
"Besides, an FIR has been lodged at the local police station against the applicant, the computer operator who fed the information into the system and the official who went on to issue the certificate".
It added, "The sub-divisional officer of Masaurhi conducted a detailed investigation and it was found that the application was made appending the Aadhaar card of a woman living in Delhi." As such, the services of the computer operator, who forwarded the online application for processing without an application of mind, have been terminated, the district administration said.
A recommendation has been made to the revenue and land reforms department for suspending the official who went on to issue the certificate despite the obvious anomalies in the application, it added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
17 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC reserves verdict on Justice Varma's plea against panel findings
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's challenge to an in-house inquiry panel's report that found him involved in the cash discovery matter. The court questioned Justice Varma's decision to participate in the in-house inquiry committee proceedings without contesting its validity at that stage. 'Your conduct does not inspire confidence. We did not want to say this, but your conduct says a lot. You could have come. There are judgments which say that once you submit to the authority, there is a possibility that you may have a favourable finding, and once you found it to be unpalatable, you came here. A person who is invoking Article 32 jurisdiction — conduct is also relevant,' Justice Datta said. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A G Masih heard the matter. The bench also heard a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Yashwant Varma, said that the Judges (Inquiry) Act occupies the entire field relating to the removal of a judge, and hence an in-house inquiry cannot lead to a judge's removal. 'If an in-house procedure can trigger the process of removal of judges, then it is violative of Article 124,' he argued. Article 124 of the Constitution deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Datta then pointed out that the in-house procedure has its origins in judgments delivered by the Supreme Court. Justice Varma also challenged the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. His plea alleges that the panel's findings were based on a 'preconceived narrative' and that the adverse findings were drawn without affording him a full and fair hearing. 'Whether to proceed or not proceed is a political decision. But the judiciary has to send a message to society that the process has been followed,' the bench said. The bench pointed out that the Chief Justice of India post is not supposed to be a post office only. 'He (the CJI) has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come before him (regarding misconduct), the CJI has the duty to forward them to the President and the Prime Minister. If, on the basis of the material, it is found that the misdemeanour is so serious as to call for action, he would be affirming the earlier decisions of this court saying the CJI has the authority to do so,' Justice Datta said. He further stated that the 'in-house procedure' was the law laid down by the Supreme Court as per Article 141. However, the bench agreed with Sibal's argument that the videos showing burning of cash currencies should not have been leaked during the procedure. The in-house inquiry committee had examined 55 witnesses and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11.35 pm on March 14, 2025, at the official residence of Justice Varma, then serving in the Delhi High Court and now a judge of the Allahabad High Court. Based on the panel's findings, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Nithari case: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as many as 14 appeals against the acquittal of accused Surendra Koli in the sensational 2006 Nithari serial killings case. Nithari case: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran said that there was "no perversity" in the findings of the Allahabad High Court acquitting Koli. Referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the CJI said the recovery of skulls and other belongings of the victims from an open drain was not made following the statement of Koli before the police. The bench said any recovery made without recording the statement of the accused by the police is not admissible as evidence under the Evidence law. It said only those recoveries, which are made from a place accessible to the accused only, can be admitted as evidence in a case primarily hinging on circumstantial evidence. The top court last year agreed to examine separate pleas, including those filed by the CBI and the Uttar Pradesh government, challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision acquitting Koli on October 16, 2023. One of the pleas was filed by the father of one of the victims challenging the high court's verdict. Moninder Singh Pandher and his domestic help Koli were accused of rape and murder of people, mostly children from their neighbourhood in Nithari in Uttar Pradesh. Koli was awarded the death penalty on September 28, 2010 by the trial court. The high court acquitted Pandher and Koli in the death penalty case, holding the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" and called it a "botched up" investigation. Reversing the death sentence given to Koli in 12 cases and Pandher in two cases, the high court said the probe was "nothing short of a betrayal of public trust by responsible agencies". This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
SC questions Justice Varma's conduct in cash row, reserves order on plea
The Supreme Court told Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday that his conduct did not inspire confidence and asked why he chose to move the apex court after an in-house committee found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row. The top court was hearing Justice Varma's plea seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery matter. The in-house inquiry panel report indicted Justice Varma over the discovery of a huge cache of burnt cash from his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge. The plea does not reveal Justice Varma's identity and is titled, "XXX v. The Union of India". Posing sharp questions to the judge, the top court asked Justice Varma why he appeared before the in-house inquiry committee and did not challenge it then and there. It told Justice Varma that he should have come earlier to the apex court against the in-house inquiry panel's report. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said the in-house process was put in place in 1999 and the chief justice of India (CJI) cannot be considered as a mere post office. "The Chief Justice of India is not supposed to be a post office only. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If material comes to him regarding misconduct, he is only to inform the president and the prime minister. Nothing more. "If on the basis of the material, it is found that misdemeanour is so serious calling for an action, he would be affirming earlier decisions of this court that CJI has the power to do so," Justice Datta remarked orally. The top court reserved its order on Justice Varma's petition challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the CJI's recommendation for his removal. As the hearing commenced, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, referred to Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution and said it lays down a complete procedure for the removal of a judge, and any parallel or extra-constitutional mechanism falls outside the framework of the Constitution. Article 124 deals with the appointment and removal of Supreme Court judges, while Article 218 applies the same provisions to high court judges. He said the removal of a judge is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act and an in-house inquiry cannot lead to a judge's removal. Sibal submitted that the in-house inquiry panel's recommendation for his removal is unconstitutional. He said the in-house inquiry is merely an administrative procedure and it lacks the safeguards of the ?Judges Inquiry Act, 1968?, such as strict standards of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses. Stating that a recommendation for removal in this manner would set a dangerous precedent, Sibal said a recommendation for removal from the CJI "sounds the death knell" for a judge. Countering Sibal's argument, Justice Datta said three judgments have reaffirmed the in-house procedure after it came into force. The in-house procedure has its origins in the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court, Justice Datta said. When the bench asked what relief Justice Varma was seeking, Sibal replied that he wanted a declaration that the CJI's recommendation for Justice Varma's removal was "non-est" ("not existing") and unconstitutional. Justice Datta said that relief cannot stop the proceedings at this stage. Sibal said when the CJI recommends the removal of a judge on the basis of an in-house procedure which holds great persuasive value. "Since it comes from a high constitutional authority, which can influence the process in Parliament, by making such a recommendation, the CJI is interfering with the domain of Parliament," Sibal said. On the question of delay in approaching the top court, Sibal said a tape was released on the SC website and the judge's reputation was already damaged. "What would I come to court for?" he said. "The points you are raising are major, but could have been raised before, and thus your conduct does not inspire confidence and your conduct says a lot," the bench remarked. "The tapes have been put on the website. Does that mean everything is vitiated and you will go scot-free?" the bench said. "The problem is that the report emanates from the CJI's office and if I show you the statements, please see the statements by the political parties. The statements say the committee has forced us to move the motion," Sibal said. "The in-house committee report is a preliminary report and cannot affect future proceedings. We cannot go by newspaper reports," Justice Datta said. "But I cannot challenge the committee report there in Parliament," Sibal said. "If some Parliamentarian says something, even if he is a minister, it matters little," the bench added. "You have to show the violation of procedure was there by the Chief Justice of India. When you know in-house proceedings can trigger impeachment and you think only Parliament can do it, you should have come then and there," the top court said. The top court also pulled advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. During the hearing, Justice Datta questioned Nedumpara on whether he had even approached the police with a formal complaint before seeking the registration of an FIR. It also reserved its order on a separate petition filed by Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR.
