SC asks for Centre's response, says states need designated courts to try special offences
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was acting on the bail plea of a Naxal sympathiser from Gadchiroli in Maharashtra. He was booked after 15 policemen of a quick response team were killed in a blast in the state.
"Additional solicitor general of India has referred to the affidavit filed by respondent 2 - National Investigation Agency. We are, however, of the view that when trials are to take place under special laws, it is imperative on the Union or States to establish specialised courts with adequate infrastructure for ensuring speedy trial, for achieving the legislative object of the statute," the bench said in its order of May 9.
ASG Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakre was, therefore, granted two weeks to obtain instructions on the matter as the bench posted the hearing on May 23.
The top court asked the Centre and Maharashtra government why couldn't they conduct a judicial impact assessment of the special statutes after enactment of the laws and said adequate judicial infrastructure was required for the speedy disposal of cases.
"We have been saying time and again that where are the judges and courts? How can you conduct an expeditious trial in serious cases if you burden the existing judges with additional cases under special statutes? I am very clear in my mind that if you want to prosecute under special laws, then first create adequate judicial infrastructure and appoint judges," Justice Kant said.
Thakre said a proposal on establishing special courts was sent to the government and was pending consideration but Justice Kant asked why was the state not providing a special court to decide sensitive cases such as the one at hand with significant ramifications.
Thakre then sought time to get back with instructions prompting the court to adjourn the matter.
The top court had previously noted due to delay in completion of trial, those accused in heinous offences took advantage of bail as trials couldn't go on indefinitely.
The top court was hearing a plea of one Kailash Ramchandani after the Bombay High Court rejected his bail plea on March 5, 2024.
He contended he had been in jail since 2019 and while charges hadn't been framed in the case so far, the co-accused had been granted bail.
The high court in its order recorded Ramchandani was booked under various sections of IPC, Arms Act, Maharashtra Police Act, MCOCA and UA in 2019 after 15 police personnel of the quick response team were killed in a blast at Kurkheda-Purada Road, Gadchiroli, while travelling in a vehicle on May 1, 2019.
The case was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency which booked Ramchandani and others.
Ramchandani allegedly informed one of the co-accused about the police vehicle from one spot for the blast to be executed.
"It is evident that mere delay in the trial pertaining to grave offences, by itself cannot be a ground to enlarge an accused on bail, dehors the facts. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that 15 police personnel were killed in a mine blast, which took place on May 1, 2019," the high court ruled.
The order said the material placed by the prosecution on record prima facie indicated the complicity of the appellant in the conspiracy.
"The statements on record show that the appellant was in touch with the naxals. That he would visit the jungle and had informed the co-accused of the passing of the police vehicle on the fateful day. Thus, we find that the appellant had knowingly facilitated the commission of a terrorist act," it added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
2 held, 5 minors taken into custody for brandishing sickles in Yerawada
Police on Monday arrested two individuals and took five minors into custody after a gang created terror in the Ganeshnagar area of Yerawada on August 5 by brandishing sickles and shouting aggressively, leading to residents locking themselves indoors out of fear. A case was registered in the Yerawada Police Station, and two gang members were arrested.(Shutterstock) A video of the incident soon went viral, creating more panic and confusion. Yerawada police later registered a case and rounded up all seven gang members. The incident was reported from the Ganeshnagar area, where the gang was noticed roaming around, freely brandishing weapons around 11pm. Also Read | Police constable kills wife 10 days after marriage in UP's Basti district, held Later, they uploaded a video of the incident on social media, which the police also saw and immediately swung into action. Senior inspector Ravindra Shelke said a case was registered in Yerawada Police Station and two from the gang were arrested, while the other five were produced before the Juvenile Court as they were minors. Also Read | Karnataka woman murdered, body cut into 19 pieces; dentist son-in-law arrested: Report In the same Ganeshnagar area where the youths tried to spread fear, the police paraded the two arrested goons with their faces covered, following their arrest on Monday. Citizens were urged not to tolerate hooliganism and report such incidents to the police immediately. Inspector Ravindra Shelke said, 'The accused wanted to establish their dominance in the area and waved the weapons in the air to spread terror. Necessary sections have been invoked against the accused under the Arms Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.'
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stray dog order spotlights poor pet registration in Delhi
The Supreme Court's recent directive to relocate stray dogs in Delhi-NCR has put the spotlight on another long-standing problem — the capital's dismal pet dog registration rate. Despite it being mandatory under Section 399 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) Act, only 5,767 pet dogs are registered in the city, with 381 applications pending, according to MCD data. The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. (AFP/Representational image) Officials warn that this gap leaves a dangerous grey area between pets and strays, opening the door to disputes and misuse of the complaint system. 'Registration and the token serve as proof of ownership. With the recent SC judgment, we expect a surge in applications, especially for adopted indigenous breeds,' said a senior MCD official. Non-registration can attract fines and prosecution under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with negligent behaviour with respect to animals. The Act also allows detention of unregistered dogs found in public places, a step veterinary officials say is rarely enforced. Experts warn that poor compliance risks deepening confusion and triggering disputes. Gauri Maulekhi, activist and trustee at People for Animals (PFA), said the lack of registration creates a grey area between pets and community dogs. 'Some people collar strays, keep them indoors for long periods, or adopt indies as full-fledged pets. If neither strays nor pets are tagged, it's bound to cause confusion,' she said, adding that this could even pit neighbours against each other. 'A neighbour might report my dog as a stray, or conversely, collar a stray and claim it's a long-time pet.' The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. Asher Jesudoss, whose 2022 plea in the Delhi high court led to the creation of the Delhi Animal Welfare Board, said that since very few dogs are registered in Delhi, one can find it difficult to differentiate between pets and strays. 'As the name suggests, community dogs are those that belong to the entire community. But nothing stops an individual from collaring the stray and taking it indoors and keeping it as a pet. As per our rules, all breeds and dogs need to be registered. MCD needs to register all pets as proving ownership otherwise becomes tricky,' he said. Pet registration can be done online, with a uniform ₹500 fee. A veterinary official said actual registrations are far below the real number of pets. 'We issue a brass token for the dog's collar, which also lets us track vaccination status,' the official added.
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court's stray dog order: Amicus report flagged ‘fundamental right' to move freely without fear of dog bite or assault
Underlining the fundamental right of a human being to move freely without the fear of a dog bite or assault, the Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae had recommended relocating stray dogs to shelters and not releasing them back on the streets. In his recommendations to the court before Monday's order, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, the amicus in the case, said: 'Putting the dog back on the street, where there is grave harm to us, is a direct violation of our fundamental rights to move freely without the fear of a dog bite/ assault.' On Monday, the court directed the authorities in Delhi-NCR to relocate all stray dogs to dedicated dog shelters, underlining that they should not be released back on the streets. 'The 2023 Rules somehow seems to suggest that the fundamental rights of stray dogs to roam around in the street(s), attack human beings and create public nuisance is at a higher pedestal than the fundamental rights of human beings,' the amicus report said. The 2023 Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules deal with the management of stray dog and cat population. The Rules reclassified them as 'community animals', included provisions for community animal feeding and specified that stray dogs cannot be displaced from their regular place of habitation. While the ABC Rules mandate that stray dogs be brought back to their habitat after sterilisation, the amicus report said there is 'absolutely no material to suggest that the sterilisation would eliminate the chance of the dog biting.' 'In almost all developed countries, there are no stray dogs on the streets,' the report said. 'There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that our streets/ public places should be free from stray dogs,' it added. Citing rising dog bite data, the report said: 'The presence of stray dogs on our streets/ public places like airports, railway stations is a direct infringement of our fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21 (right to move freely and the right to life respectively) of the Constitution of India.' Citing government data, it said that in 2024, there were 37,15,713 reported dog bites across the country and 25,201 dog bites in Delhi. According to the report, Delhi had 3,196 cases of dog bites in January alone. 'If figures of January 2025 are any indication, the cases of dog bites have increased by 50%,' the report said. The report suggested that the Court could issue directives to municipal authorities in Delhi to 'begin by creating dog shelter(s) for say 5,000 dogs in the next 6-8 weeks.' It also recommended that stray dogs captured would be detained in shelters and 'would not be released on the streets/ public spaces under any circumstance.' The amicus also recommended that stray dogs captured may be put up for adoption to individuals through animal welfare organisations.
