Supreme Court grants interim relief to DICCI in sanitation scheme case
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih kept in abeyance an order passed by the high court in connection with the implementation of the Annal Ambedkar Business Champions Scheme (AABCS).
The top court also asked the high court to consider the impleadment of DICCI, so that they get an opportunity to be heard before any decision was taken in the case.
'Let the present petitioners [DICCI] be impleaded as respondents. Let the high court consider the application and let an order be passed after hearing all parties. Till such an order is passed, let the impugned order be kept in abeyance,' the top court ordered.
The brief hearing saw the Bench question the urgency with which the high court had taken up the petition filed by activist Savukku Shankar during the court's vacation and passed the interim order which came under challenge.
Mr. Shankar had sought a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into allegations of diversion of funds.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
5 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC upholds conviction of Medha Patkar in defamation case, waives penalty of ₹1 lakh
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the conviction of social activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed by Delhi lieutenant governor (L-G) VK Saxena but waived the penalty of ₹1 lakh imposed on her. The sessions court in April this year, upheld the conviction but set aside the jail term and released Patkar on probation. (File photo) A bench of justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh passed the order in relation to an appeal filed by Patkar challenging the July 29 order of the Delhi high court upholding her conviction. 'We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant stands set aside,' the bench said. The Delhi high court upheld the trial court's order convicting and sentencing Patkar in a 2001 criminal defamation case filed by L-G Saxena, concluding that her statements were defamatory and tarnished Saxena's image. The defamation case was filed by Saxena at the time when he was heading the non profit National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL)-- which actively supported the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project in Gujarat. Also Read: Delhi HC upholds conviction of Medha Patkar in criminal defamation case It stemmed from the press release issued by Patkar, who led the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) that mobilised protests against the construction of the dam. The release titled 'True Face of Patriot', alleged that Saxena had donated a cheque to NBA, which later bounced and implied that he covertly aided the movement, which he publicly opposed. In May last year, metropolitan magistrate Raghav Sharma found Patkar guilty, sentenced her to five months imprisonment and imposed ₹10 lakh fine. The sessions court in April this year, upheld the conviction but set aside the jail term and released Patkar on probation. The HC upheld the sessions court order, observing that the same was passed after due consideration of evidence and law. The order of July 29 said, 'The record suggests that the essential ingredients of Section 499 (criminal defamation) of the IPC are clearly made out. The imputations made were specific, published in the public domain and caused harm to the reputation of the respondent. The order under challenge appears to have been passed after due consideration of the evidence on record and the applicable law.' Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh appearing for Patkar said that the HC disbelieved the statement of witnesses produced in favour of Patkar's defence. Patkar asserted she had no connection either with and did not have knowledge about the press note. Parikh further submitted that the release could have been typed by anyone and mere addition of the name at the end of the note, could not be considered as a proof that the release was issued or caused to be published by her. Saxena was represented in the top court by senior advocate Maninder Singh. The L-G maintained that Patkar was actively involved in the issuance of the press release. He further submitted that even though the 70-year old activist was not a convenor of the web portal on which the press release was uploaded, she was directly correlated to it since the portal contained NBA's office address, which is same as Patkar's address. The high court had modified the condition of probation requiring her to physically appear before the trial court every three months. The high court said that she could either appear online or through her lawyer. The top court held that the supervision order in this regard will not be given effect to.
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC confirms Medha Patkar's conviction in defamation case by Delhi LG Saxena
The Supreme Court on Monday confirmed the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in a 25-year-old defamation case filed by Delhi LG V K Saxena. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said it was not inclined to interfere with the Delhi high court order on the matter that released Patkar on 'probation of good conduct' but required her to appear before the trial court once every three years. It added, 'However, taking into consideration the submission of the counsel for the petitioner the penalty imposed stands set aside and we further clarify that the supervision order will not be given effect.' The high court on July 29 upheld the conviction and punishment awarded to 70-year-old Patkar. Saxena filed the case 25 years ago when he was heading an NGO in Gujarat. The high court had said there was illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the trial court and added that the order of conviction was passed after due consideration of evidence and the applicable law. It had said that Patkar failed to demonstrate any defects in the procedure which was followed or any error in the law which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The high court also upheld the order on sentence, where Patkar was released on 'probation of good conduct', and said it did not require any interference. Probation is a method of non-institutional treatment of offenders and a conditional suspension of sentence in which the offender, after conviction, is released on bond of good behaviour instead of being sent to prison. The high court, however, had modified the condition of probation imposed by the trial court, requiring Patkar to appear before the trial court once in every three months, and allowed her to either appear physically or through videoconferencing or be represented through the lawyer during the appearances. The Narmada Bachao Andolan leader challenged the April 2 sessions court order upholding her conviction handed out by a magisterial court in the case. The sessions court, which upheld Patkar's conviction in the case, released her on 'probation of good conduct' on furnishing a probation bond of Rs 25,000 on April 8 and imposed a precondition on her of depositing Rs 1 lakh as fine. The magisterial court on July 1, 2024 sentenced Patkar to five months of simple imprisonment and slapped a Rs 10 lakh fine after finding her guilty under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC. Saxena filed the case as president of the National Council of Civil Liberties against Patkar for her defamatory press release against Saxena issued on November 24, 2000. On May 24, 2024, the magisterial court held that that Patkar's statements were not only per se defamatory but also 'crafted to incite negative perceptions' about him. The accusation that the complainant was 'mortgaging' the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service, it had said. On April 2, the sessions court had dismissed a challenge to the order and held Patkar was 'rightly convicted' and there was 'no substance' in the appeal against the verdict of her conviction in the defamation case.
Time of India
8 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bihar polls: Law doesn't require sharing list of people missing from electoral rolls, ECI tells SC
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India ( ECI ) has told the Supreme Court that the law does not require it to prepare or share any separate list of names of people missing from draft electoral rolls or publish the reasons for their non-inclusion "for any reason" whatsoever. Responding on the allegations by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) that over 65 lakh names had been deleted from Bihar's draft electoral rolls without transparency and without disclosure of whether the deletions related to deceased persons, migrants, or other categories, ECI said no eligible voter in Bihar will be removed from the electoral rolls without prior notice during the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) in the state. Productivity Tool Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide By Metla Sudha Sekhar View Program Finance Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory By Dinesh Nagpal View Program Finance Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By CA Rahul Gupta View Program Digital Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel By Neil Patel View Program Finance Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading By Kunal Patel View Program Productivity Tool Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By Study at home View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program The ECI further said that no such lists need to be prepared or shared of "previous" electors whose enumeration forms were not received. Reiterating the need for an opportunity to be heard and a reasoned order, the poll panel stressed that "strict directions" have been issued to prevent wrongful deletions during the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) in the state. The top court has already fixed the hearing on August 12 and 13 of a batch of pleas challenging the Election Commission of India's move to conduct SIR of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar. Live Events The affidavit further stated, "After the publication of the draft rolls, the political parties were supplied with an updated list of names of electors not included in the draft roll so as to ensure all attempts are made to reach out to these individuals and no eligible elector is left out. The political parties have acknowledged receipt of the said list. Here, it is also pertinent to point out that the list includes acknowledgements on behalf of CPI(M-L) as well." Booth Level Officers (BLOs) had held polling station meetings with Booth Level Agents (BLAs) of political parties on August 7, almost a week after the publication of the preliminary electoral roll on August 1, it said. The poll panel submitted, "The list of electors whose names could not be included in the draft electoral roll were read out and shared and appeals were made to the BLAs and others to reach out to them so that no eligible voter can be left out."
