Delhi riots: Judge hearing ‘larger conspiracy' case brought back to Karkardooma Court after transfer
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai's transfer was announced on May 30 from the Karkardooma Court to the Saket Court and Additional Sessions Judge Lalit Kumar had replaced him, Live Law reported. This was among 135 transfers of judges in trial courts across Delhi.
This would have delayed the case significantly, as five of the 18 persons accused in the matter and the public prosecutors would have had to present their arguments before the court again.
Bajpai had been hearing the case since September and the case was at the stage of arguments on charges. The trial was expected to begin after the arguments were heard.
This would have been the second time that the case could have been delayed because of a routine transfer of a judge. Earlier, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat had been hearing the case, before being replaced by Bajpai, Live Law reported.
However, on Wednesday, a notification on the Delhi High Court website stated that Kumar had been transferred back to the Saket Court and Bajpai was brought back to the Karkardooma Court, where the Delhi riots case is being heard.
Notably, Kumar, who replaced Bajpai, heard the case for the first time on June 2 and said that arguments on charges must be expedited, Live Law reported.
The case will be heard next in July now.
Clashes had broken out in North East Delhi in February 2020 between supporters of the Citizenship Amendment Act and those opposing it. The violence left 53 dead and hundreds injured.
The Delhi Police has claimed that the violence was part of a larger conspiracy to defame the Narendra Modi government and was plotted by those who organised the protests against the contentious citizenship law.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
SHOs to act against pvt security firms without licence
Lucknow: Station house officers (SHOs) will now identify and take action against private security firms operating without a valid licence in their respective jurisdictions, according to new directives issued by the Lucknow Police. The instructions were part of a meeting held on Wednesday at the Reserve Police Lines, chaired by joint commissioner of police (Law and order) Babloo Kumar. Kumar directed all SHOs to identify and take strict legal action against unlicensed private security agencies functioning in their respective jurisdictions. In addition, they were asked to prepare a list of security firms registered outside Lucknow but operating within the city under state-level licenses. "A major highlight of the meeting was the enforcement of employee verification protocols. All licensed security agencies are now mandated to get every staff member verified through the UPCOP App or the official Lucknow Police website. Agencies must also maintain comprehensive documentation, including Aadhaar cards, bank passbooks and photographs of all employees, and must comply with provisions of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005," police said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Take a Look - How Watching Videos Can Boost Your Income TheDaddest Undo The meeting was attended by representatives from the Association of Private Security Owners of UP (APSO), including president Ashish Singh and vice president Umesh Kumar. SHOs have been instructed to hold monthly coordination meetings with owners or authorised representatives of security agencies. Also, assistant commissioners of police will conduct quarterly inspections of security firms, and agencies must apply at least 45 days in advance for licence renewal.
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
Dharmasthala burials case: No skeletal remains found at new spot near site no. 11
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the Dharmasthala burials case did not find any skeletal remains at the new spot shown by the complainant-witness, near site no. 11 at Banglagudde near Dharmasthala, after digging at the location on Wednesday. The SIT recovered some skeletal remains, said to be of a male, after the complainant-witness pointed towards them lying on the ground inside the forest area at Banglagudde on Monday. The SIT dug at the same spot on Wednesday. The team, however, did not dig at site no. 13, the last of the sites identified by the complainant-witness for exhumation. The SIT is likely to dig at site no. 13 on Thursday. Before commencing the digging operation, Pronab Mohanty, chief of the SIT, held an hour-long meeting with his team at the SIT office in Belthangady on Wednesday morning. Mr. Mohanty held another round of meetings in Belthangady after the completion of the digging. Some of the SIT officials visited the Dharmasthala gram panchayat to check the documents related to unnatural deaths recorded in the village from 1995 to 2014. Meanwhile, the Dharmasthala police registered a case of unnatural death to probe the matter of skeletal remains getting discovered at the new site, at Banglagudde, on Monday. The case was transferred to the SIT as per orders of the DG&IGP, M.A. Saleem. The Dharmasthala police have also transferred to SIT the unnatural death case registered following the discovery of skeletal remains, said to be of a male, at site no. 6 during the exhumation on July 31. It has also transferred to SIT the petition filed by activist T. Jayant accusing police of burying the body of a 15-year-old girl without registering a case. Meanwhile, a YouTuber, Kirthi Kumar, popular as 'Kirik Kirthi', filed a complaint with SIT on Wednesday, urging it to take action against YouTube channels and other individuals spreading misinformation on social media platforms on the exhumation process. In his complaint, Mr. Kumar stated that several YouTube channels were publishing videos claiming to have information from SIT sources and reporting on unverified details about the discovery of skulls and skeletal remains. He accused them of uploading misleading content, which could misguide public and disrupt the course of the investigation. Mr. Kumar accused a lawyer from Bengaluru of spreading unverified information about the investigation on social media. He urged the SIT to register cases against those attempting to derail the investigation or mislead the public through social media platforms.
Scroll.in
13 hours ago
- Scroll.in
SC quashes Madras High Court order barring use of former CMs' photos, party symbols in scheme ads
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside an interim order passed by the Madras High Court that restrained the Tamil Nadu government from naming welfare schemes after living politicians and using the photographs of former chief ministers, ideological leaders and party symbols in advertisements, Live Law reported. A bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria passed the direction on petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government and the state's ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam against the High Court order. The High Court had passed the order on July 31 in response to a public interest litigation filed by C Ve Shanmugam, an MP from the Opposition All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. He had sought directions to stop the DMK government from using Chief Minister MK Stalin's name in public outreach programmes such as Ungaludan Stalin (With You, Stalin) and Mudhalvarin Mugavari (Chief Minister's Address). Shanmugam had argued that such practices violated the Supreme Court's earlier directions as well as the 2014 Government Advertisement Content Regulation Guidelines. The High Court had referred to an earlier Supreme Court ruling that allowed using the current chief minister's photographs in government ads, but said that including former leaders or party icons could be seen as political misuse of public funds. In its ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court criticised the petitioner for selectively challenging only the Tamil Nadu government's programmes, saying that similar schemes named after political leaders were common across the country. The bench also noted the DMK's submission that several schemes named after leaders were implemented during the AIADMK's term. 'We do not appreciate the anxiety of the petitioner to choose only one political party and one political leader,' Live Law quoted the bench as saying. 'If the petitioner was so concerned about the misuse of political funds, the petitioner could have made a challenge to all such schemes.' It added: 'Singling out only one political leader shows the intentions of the petitioner.' The Supreme Court said that the petitioner had rushed to the High Court just three days after making a representation to the Election Commission, and described the writ petition as 'misconceived in law' and an 'abuse of the process of law'. 'Political battles should be settled before the electoral roll,' Live Law quoted the Supreme Court as saying. 'Courts should not be used for this.'
