Courts will have to release NIA and UAPA accused if special courts not set up: SC to Centre
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said in its order: 'If the authority fails to establish courts with requisite infrastructure for conducting speedy trial under the NIA Act and other special statutes, the court would invariably be forced to release the accused on bail…'
The bench told Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakre, appearing for the Centre and Maharashtra government, that designating the existing courts as special courts amounted to 'coercing' the high court to relabel them.
'…no effective or visible steps have been taken to set up special courts for speedy trial in cases under NIA Act and other special statutes. It goes without saying that setting up of special courts would require creation of posts for superior judicial officers, staff, courtroom and basic amenities,' the bench said.
The court said an impression was created that the designation of an existing court as special court would be sufficient compliance of its directives.
'We are outrightly rejecting this plea taken by the respondents (Centre and Maharashtra government),' the bench said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
7/11 Mumbai train blasts case: Maharashtra moves SC challenging Bombay HC's acquittals of 12 convicts
NEW DELHI: The Maharashtra government on Tuesday knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court by filing an appeal challenging Monday's Bombay High Court verdict acquitting all 12 convicts in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before a bench of the top court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai, seeking urgent listing and hearing of the appeal. After hearing Mehta's submission, the CJI-led bench agreed to list the matter for hearing on Thursday. During the brief hearing, Mehta told the top court that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was ready. 'Please list it tomorrow... There is urgency,' the SG pleaded. CJI Gavai responded by stating that he had read in the papers that eight accused had already been released from prison following the High Court's Monday, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused in the 2006 train blasts case as it set aside the Special MCOCA Court's 2015 order that had handed the death sentence to five and life imprisonment to seven others, saying it was 'hard to believe' they committed the crime.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Have the right to 'verify citizenship', EC tells SC on Bihar roll revision
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has informed the Supreme Court that it has the legal authority to seek proof of citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, Live Law reported. This comes in response to petitions alleging that the poll panel's is overstepping its powers by demanding citizenship documents from voters. EC cites constitutional and legal mandates In a counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Election Commission said its actions are backed by Article 326 of the Constitution, and Section 16 and Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act). These provisions, the poll panel said, require it to ensure that only Indian citizens are included in the electoral rolls. 'Verifying citizenship is Election Commission's duty' The Election Commission clarified that Section 19 of the RP Act makes citizenship a key eligibility condition for voter registration. It stressed that the poll panel must verify whether this condition is met by applicants, Live Law reported. 'Under the provision of the Constitution of India and statutory provisions, the ECI is obligated to verify the eligibility of the voters… and ensure any person who fails to fulfil the mandatory requirements is not included,' the affidavit said. Centre's role under citizenship act is limited: Election Commission Dismissing the argument that only the Central Government can decide citizenship matters, the Election Commission pointed to Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. It said that this provision only grants the Centre power in specific cases — such as when a citizen is suspected of acquiring foreign citizenship voluntarily. The affidavit added, 'It is only for this limited purpose that the exclusive jurisdiction has been vested in the Central government... Other aspects related to citizenship can be inquired into by other relevant authorities... including the ECI.' Election Commission clarifies its role in citizenship scrutiny The poll panel further said it is not adjudicating citizenship but only verifying voter eligibility for inclusion in the electoral rolls. It added that this is distinct from the citizenship determination process under the Citizenship Act. It also clarified that during the SIR, names are removed from the rolls only after a detailed inquiry, and when the Electoral Registration Officer is satisfied that the person does not meet the eligibility criteria, the news report said. Burden of proof lies with applicant: Election Commission The Election Commission rejected the allegation that it was unfairly shifting the burden of proof onto voters. It said applicants seeking inclusion must submit Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and provide proof of eligibility at the time of application. The affidavit stated that the necessary documents are 'within the special knowledge of the individual claiming to be a citizen of India', making it their responsibility to produce such evidence. During the July 17 hearing, the Supreme Court had remarked that determination of citizenship falls under the Union Government's jurisdiction, not the ECI's. The Bench had also advised the Commission to consider documents like Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards during the Bihar SIR. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on July 28.
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Presidential reference case: SC issues notice to Centre, states; timeline for governor assent to bills under review
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and all states in the Presidential reference case that sought clarity on whether the court can set timelines and procedures for the President and state governors to act on Bills passed by state legislatures. A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, also asked attorney general R Venkataramani to assist the court in the matter. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta will appear for the Centre. "There are issues of interpretation of the Constitution. We have requested the learned attorney general to assist us. Issue notice to Union and all state governments. Learned Solicitor General will appear for Union. All state governments be served through email. List it next Tuesday. Notice be also served to all standing counsels," the court said. The case has been listed for further hearing on Tuesday, July 29. The constitution bench was formed to hear the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. This article allows the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or matters of public importance. The reference follows an April ruling of the Supreme Court that laid down timelines for the President and governors to act on Bills. The judgment had also stated that inaction by a governor under Article 200 is subject to judicial review. The ruling came in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu. The court had said that the absence of a time limit under Article 200 does not mean governors can delay action indefinitely. The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had held that governors must act within a reasonable period and that constitutional silence should not stop the legislative process. The Court had said that while Article 200 does not give a fixed timeline, it should not be used to justify delays in dealing with Bills passed by state legislatures. On the powers of the President under Article 201, the Court had said that the President's decision is not outside judicial review and must be made within three months. If delayed beyond that, the reasons must be written and shared with the concerned State. "The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State," the judgment said. Following that ruling, President Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court raising fourteen questions. The reference challenged the Court's interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. It stated that neither article gives the Court the power to set deadlines and argued that the idea of "deemed assent" is not mentioned in the Constitution. The April 8 verdict, which was passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.
