Typo in bail order keeps man in jail for a month; SC summons officials
NEW DELHI:
Supreme Court
on Tuesday fumed at the Ghaziabad jail superintendent refusing to release a Muslim man, who converted to Hinduism to marry but got booked under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, for a typographical error in the apex court's order granting him bail, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
The SC on April 29 granted bail to Aftab, who voluntarily converted to Hinduism by performing rituals at an Arya Samaj Mandir at Tis Hazari and married a Hindu girl according to Hindu rites. The girl's aunt had lodged a missing person complaint when she eloped with Aftab.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Letting cops summon lawyers for advising clients can have chilling effect: SC
NEW DELHI: Allowing the police to summon lawyers for advising their clients can 'shatter the core of legal independence' and constitute a 'serious interference with the administration of justice', the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, as it initiated suo motu proceedings to address the issue and formulate safeguards to protect the legal profession. The Supreme Court observed that summoning lawyers for advising clients can shatter the core of legal independence (PTI) 'The legal profession is an integral component of the process of administration of justice. Counsels who are engaged in their legal practice have certain rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals, and also due to statutory provisions. Permitting investigating agencies or police to directly summon defence counsel or advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice,' said a bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh. The court made the observations during a hearing involving a Gujarat-based lawyer who was summoned by the police for securing bail for his client in a loan dispute case. The police summons, issued under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the SC/ST Cell in Ahmedabad, was upheld by the Gujarat high court. The top court stayed the order and protected the lawyer from further coercive action. The development comes just days after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued, and subsequently withdrew, summons to two senior Supreme Court advocates, triggering widespread outrage over the perceived breach of lawyer-client privilege and professional independence. 'Summoning lawyers for advising clients can shatter the core of legal independence,' the bench said, adding that such practices, if allowed to persist, would have a chilling effect on legal professionals and impair the justice delivery system. 'This is not just about one lawyer. It is about protecting the spine of the legal system,' it emphasised. Justice Viswanathan remarked that it was essential to address this issue comprehensively, not just as a one-off incident, but to safeguard the legal profession and preserve the integrity of the justice system. 'Lawyers must be able to advise and represent clients without fear of being summoned or harassed. We are dealing with the very heart of judicial independence and the administration of justice,' the court said. It went on to frame two critical questions. First, can the police summon a lawyer who has only advised a party in a case; and if there is more than advisory involvement, should judicial oversight be a precondition? To ensure a comprehensive and principled resolution, the court sought assistance from the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman, and presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). The matter has also been referred to Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai for appropriate orders on further listing. 'It is a matter which directly impinges the administration of justice,' the court noted. The top court's intervention comes just days after SCAORA on June 20 flagged the ED summons to the CJI as a grave infringement on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege. Senior lawyer Pratap Venugopal, who was summoned to appear before ED on June 24 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, was told that the summons had been withdrawn within hours of SCAORA raising the issue in the top court. The summons pertained to ED's probe into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises. Venugopal, in this instance, was the Advocate-on-Record for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar. ED had also summoned Datar earlier, but withdrew that notice too amid widespread criticism from the legal fraternity. In his June 20 letter to the CJI, SCAORA president Vipin Nair described the summons as 'a deeply disquieting development' and warned that coercive measures against lawyers for professional legal opinions strike at the core of the rule of law and the constitutionally protected sphere of legal advice. 'The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity -- strikes at the core of the rule of law,' the letter said, urging the CJI to frame clear guidelines. The concern was echoed across the legal community. The Delhi High Court Bar Association passed a resolution on June 17 condemning the ED summons to Datar as a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association also held an emergency meeting, with its president Brijesh Trivedi calling for urgent amendments to the Indian Evidence Act and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to safeguard lawyer-client privilege. In a statement on June 20 evening, ED said the summons to Venugopal was issued in his capacity as Independent Director of Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL), not as a legal counsel, and said any further information would be sought through email. ED also issued a circular directing all field offices not to issue summons to advocates in violation of Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It mandated that in exceptional cases where the proviso to Section 132 may apply, prior approval from the ED director would be necessary.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
'God Knows Who Is Still Languishing In Jails': Supreme Court Raps UP Police
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reprimanded Uttar Pradesh Police for failing to ensure that persons granted bail by a court of law, including itself, were not promptly released. The top court directed PC Meena, the Director-General (Personnel) of UP Police to conduct a statewide video conference with officers to ensure the court's orders on bail are not countered by 'vested interest' masquerading as 'nit-picking' of the instructions to release someone. The top court also directed the UP government to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation to a man it had granted bail on May 27 but was not released till an irate court intervened Tuesday. Suspecting 'vested interests' in keeping the man jailed, the Supreme Court also ordered a judicial inquiry by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Ghaziabad. Officers found to be at fault will be fined Rs 5 lakh, the court warned. Reports of the inquiry and confirming compliance are expected by Friday, the court said. Expressing serious concern over people being forcibly jailed in UP despite court orders for their release, the bench of Justice KV Vishwanathan and Justice NK Singh hauled up the state's police force for denying individuals their fundamental right to liberty. "Nit-picking of court orders to deny bail amounts to a serious dereliction of duty," the Supreme Court warned state officials. Mr Meena and other senior officers had been summoned as the Supreme Court heard a petition by a man called Aftab, who was denied release from Ghaizabad Jail despite securing bail. He told the top court he had been detained for 28 days, a delay the authorities claimed before the court was due to a 'clerical error' in sections of the bail and release orders. The court, though, batted away the claim, saying personal liberty could not be denied by 'useless technicalities and irrelevant errors', and asked the police to not repeat such mistakes. "God knows how many persons are languishing in UP jails like this... Sensitise your officers by Friday... via video conference... to ensure no person enlarged by a court should be in jail..." The bench also warned the police of further action if the 'vested interests' are revealed. Mr Meena assured the court he would conduct the VC immediately, and told the court there are as many as 90,000 people in jails across the state, as of June 24. Earlier, senior counsel Garima Prasad, appearing for the state government, told the court 'certain apprehensions' about a bail order, and the resulting delay, were not deliberate. In the Aftab case, he pointed out, the police sent the order back to a lower court, on the same day the Supreme Court ordered his release, for a clarification. The delay, therefore, was from the lower court, he declared. But Justice Vishwanathan was unimpressed. Warning that he would increase the compensation ordered to Rs 10 lakh, he asked, "Is 'sub section not mentioned' a valid ground to be taken by officers manning our prisons?" The bench pointed out the fact the authorities knew what the 'error' with the subsection was, but still failed to release Aftab for nearly a month.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC orders ₹5 lakh damages, probe for Uttar Pradesh man jailed despite bail
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay an interim compensation of ₹ 5 lakh to a man kept in custody for nearly a month despite securing bail, as jail authorities cited a technical error in the release order. It ordered a judicial inquiry into possible lapses by prison officials. The court sought a deeper investigation. (ANI) A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh called Aftab's continued detention a 'denial of constitutional liberty'. 'Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It cannot be bartered on this useless technicality. We only hope no other convict or undertrial is languishing in jail on account of such a technicality.' The Supreme Court on April 29 granted bail to Aftab, who was charged under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Aftab was not released even as a trial court issued a release order on May 27. The jail authorities refused to act on the order, citing the absence of a specific sub-section, Section 5(1), in the release directive of the 2021 law. The Supreme Court on Tuesday described the prolonged incarceration as a 'travesty of justice' and summoned the Uttar Pradesh director general (prisons) to appear virtually. It also directed the presence of the Ghaziabad jail superintendent. Additional advocate general Garima Parshad informed the Supreme Court that Aftab was released on Tuesday at 8:42pm after the additional sessions judge (Ghaziabad) issued a corrected release order citing Section 5(1). The Supreme Court called the explanation insufficient and deeply troubling. 'The whole episode, to say the least, is unfortunate,' the bench said. 'Each stakeholder in the process was aware of the sections involved, the crime number, and the offences with which the petitioner was charged. In spite of this, the applicant has been sent on a spin.' The court sought a deeper investigation and questioned whether there was a 'vested interest' in keeping the petitioner in custody. It said the delay might not be a mere bureaucratic lapse. Parshad submitted that an internal enquiry was underway as the court insisted on a judicial probe, requesting the Allahabad high court to designate the Ghaziabad principal district and sessions judge for an inquiry into the reasons for Aftab's continued detention from May 27 to June 24 when he was freed. The bench directed the principal district and sessions judge to determine whether the omission of the sub-clause in the release order was genuinely the cause of the delay or if there was a 'more sinister' motive at play. It asked the judge to examine whether gross negligence had occurred on the part of prison authorities and identify specific officers, if any, responsible for the lapse. Parshad argued the jail authorities acted under an earlier high court ruling, requiring detailed reference to all legal provisions in release orders. The Supreme Court rejected this justification after reviewing the ruling. 'Contrary to what...[Parshad] is contending, the high court order clearly states that if the bail order sufficiently mentions the case number or sessions trial number, then courts themselves cannot insist on any further details before releasing the prisoner,' it said. 'For a non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for at least 28 full days…the only way to remedy the situation is to order ad-hoc compensation.' The court said the final compensation will be determined based on the judicial inquiry report. It asked the director general (prisons) to issue instructions for interpreting release orders substantively. The court recorded the officer's assurance that a broader review will be undertaken to identify cases where prisoners' liberty has been denied on technical grounds. Aftab was arrested days after marrying a Hindu woman in January 2024 in a temple on the complaint of his wife's aunt. He was charge-sheeted along with his father for kidnapping and religious conversion through fraud.
