TG BJP lauds apex court's decision to transfer lawyer couple murder case to CBI
The lawyer couple was brutally murdered in broad daylight in Peddapalli district, triggering widespread outrage and raising serious concerns about the safety of legal professionals in the state. The Apex Court's decision to transfer the case to the CBI is seen as a significant step toward ensuring justice and accountability.
Rao said that the CBI probe would uncover the full facts of the case and ensure that those responsible face strict punishment. He also reiterated his long-standing demand for the introduction of an Advocate Protection Act to safeguard lawyers from such attacks.
'As a former MLC, I had repeatedly urged the previous government to enact the Advocate Protection Act, but the demand was ignored,' Rao said. He called on the current Congress-led state government to fulfill its election manifesto promise and introduce the legislation in the upcoming assembly session. Rao stressed that protecting the legal community is the government's responsibility and affirmed that the BJP would continue to advocate for justice, dignity, and security for lawyers.
He said the Supreme Court's intervention should serve as a warning to those who threaten or attack legal professionals and reaffirmed the party's commitment to legal reforms and institutional accountability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Nimisha Priya on death row: SC told talks ongoing, no immediate threat
The Supreme Court was informed on Thursday that there was "no immediate threat" to Indian nurse Nimisha Priya who is on death row in Yemen for murder. It then listed the matter after eight weeks. The counsel for petitioner organisation Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council, which is extending legal support to Priya, requested a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta to adjourn the matter. The apex court was hearing a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to use diplomatic channels to save the 38-year-old nurse from Palakkad in Kerala who was convicted of murdering her Yemeni business partner in 2017. "Negotiations are going on. As of now there is no immediate threat. Kindly adjourn it by four weeks. Hopefully, everything will be over by that time," the counsel said. "Let this matter be listed after eight weeks," the bench then said. The petitioner's counsel said they would mention the matter before the top court if there was any urgency. The top court was apprised last month that Priya's execution, which was scheduled for July 16, had been stayed. On July 18, the Centre informed the top court that efforts were on and the government was trying everything possible to ensure Priya came out safely. The petitioner organisation sought a Centre-appointed delegation to go to Yemen to meet the murder victim's family for negotiations. The bench said the petitioner could make a representation to the government. The petitioner's counsel had earlier said Priya's mother was in Yemen to negotiate with the victim's family and she has gone there as the Delhi High Court asked the Centre to give her permission to travel. Priya was convicted in 2017, sentenced to death in 2020 and her final appeal rejected in 2023. She is imprisoned in a jail in the Yemen capital Sana'a. The petitioner's counsel had earlier told the apex court that payment of blood money to the family of the deceased permissible under the Sharia law could be explored. He said the victim's family might pardon Priya if blood money was paid. On July 17, India said it was in touch with Yemeni authorities as well as certain friendly nations as part of efforts to reach a "mutually agreeable solution" in the case. According to Yemeni court documents, Priya allegedly drugged and murdered Talal Abdo Mahdi in July 2017. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC asks ECI to detail docs considered in 2003 Bihar electoral roll revision
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to inform about the documents considered during the 2003 intensive electoral roll revision in Bihar. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which resumed the hearing on a pleas challenging the June 24 ECI decision to conduct the special intensive revision (SIR) in the state said, "We would like ECI to state what documents were taken in 2003 exercise". The remarks came after advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for one of the parties, said referred to the court reportedly saying "if the date of January 1, 2003 (the date of earlier SIR) goes then everything goes". "I must submit that nothing was there to show why this date is there The impression sought to be conveyed is that it is the earlier date when the intensive exercise for revision of the electoral roll was held. It is stated that the EPIC (voter) card issued then is more reliable than issued during summary exercises conducted from time to time, is incorrect," Pasha said. Pasha asked if the process of enrolling under intensive and summary revisions was the same then how could EPIC cards issued under summary exercises be discarded. The lawyer, therefore, said the date of 2003 was invalid and not based on intelligible differentia (basis of distinguishing the two situations). "No receipt of my enumeration form is being given or any documents acknowledging the receipt is given and therefore the booth level officers have an upper hand and these lower level officers have too much discretion on whether the form has to be taken or not," he said. Senior advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for another petitioner, pointed out insufficient reasons in the ECI notification saying the process invented was neither "summary" nor "intensive" but just a creation of the notification. "This is a process of voter registration and cannot be a process of disqualification. This is a process to welcome and not turn this into a process to unwelcome," he said. The top court on August 13 observed electoral rolls cannot remain "static" and there is bound to be a revision, the top court said the expanded list of acceptable documents of identity from seven to 11 for Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voters' list was in fact "voter-friendly and not exclusionary." As the row over the SIR escalated, the bench said the EC had the residual power to conduct such an exercise as it deemed fit. The bench also disagreed with a submission by a petitioner that the SIR of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar had no basis in law and ought to be quashed. Leaders of opposition parties including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Congress and the NGO Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) have challenged the electoral roll revision drive in Bihar.
Time of India
6 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court reserves verdict on Delhi-NCR stray dogs case – Key updates and public reaction
Supreme Court on stray dogs: The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on the ongoing Delhi-NCR stray dogs case after a hearing on Thursday, 14 August. The matter relates to a plea challenging the earlier court order issued on 11 August, which directed the relocation of all stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) to shelter homes. Background of the Stray Dogs Controversy On 11 August, a two-judge bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed that the rising number of dog bite incidents had created an 'extremely grim' situation. They ordered the permanent relocation of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR 'at the earliest.' This decision triggered strong opposition from animal rights groups and residents. Following these protests, the case came before a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, which decided to reserve the order after hearing multiple sides of the argument. Court's Concerns Over Inaction by Authorities During Thursday's hearing, the Supreme Court pointed out that the root cause of the issue lies in the inaction of local authorities in implementing the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. The bench remarked, 'Rules are made by the Parliament, but they are not being enforced. This lack of implementation has created a situation where humans are suffering from attacks, while animal lovers are concerned about the welfare of dogs.' The court stressed the need for a balanced approach to protect both public safety and animal welfare. Withdrawal of Suo Motu Case On 13 August, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai withdrew the suo motu case on stray dogs from the bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan. This allowed fresh hearings before a different bench. Government and NGO Arguments Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, criticised some individuals who publicly claim to be animal lovers but engage in contradictory behaviour. Meanwhile, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for an NGO dedicated to dog welfare, called the situation 'very serious' and sought an immediate stay on the 11 August order. PETA India's Stand The Indian branch of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) strongly opposed the order, labelling it 'impractical, illogical, and illegal.' They warned that removing community dogs from their natural surroundings could lead to 'chaos and suffering' for both the animals and residents. People's Reaction to the Supreme Court's Stray Dog Order The Supreme Court's order has sparked mixed reactions among citizens: One social media user commented, 'Whether someone eats chicken or not has nothing to do with their right to care for stray dogs. Compassion is not an all-or-nothing equation. You can consume meat and still believe in humane treatment of animals.' Another person expressed both relief and concern, saying, 'Happy and sad at the same time. Why not extend the ban to all strays, including cows?' A traveller shared, 'I've been to France, Italy, Switzerland, Japan, America, Russia, UAE, Israel, Sri Lanka, and many other countries, but I never saw street dogs there. Is there more love for them only in India?' A neutral perspective came from one user suggesting, 'Both sides are wrong. The best solution is to neuter and vaccinate dogs while building proper shelters for their gradual removal from the streets.' Another user explained, 'A reserved order means the judge has finished hearing arguments but will take time to write and deliver the final judgment later.' What Happens Next? With the order now reserved, the Supreme Court will take time to review the case details before delivering its final decision. This judgment is expected to have a significant impact on Delhi-NCR stray dog management policies, influencing both public safety and animal welfare in the region. To stay updated on the stories that are going viral, follow Indiatimes Trending.
