SC rejects Nagam Janardhan Reddy's please on Palamuru-Rangareddy Project
A bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and including Justice Satish Chandra Sharma found no merit in the case to warrant interference with a prior ruling from the Telangana High Court, which dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by Dr. Nagam on 3rd December 2018. The Supreme Court noted that four similar cases filed by Dr. Nagam concerning the same project have either been dismissed or disposed of, attaining finality with no pending appeals.
The court highlighted the findings of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), who stated that the allegations made by Dr. Nagam were unsubstantiated. During the hearing, the bench questioned senior counsel Prashant Bhushan, representing Dr. Nagam, on the grounds for claiming that a revision of rates was fraudulent. Mr. Bhushan requested the bench to focus on the second part of the petition, which sought a directive for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the alleged fraud. However, Justice Nagarathna expressed scepticism, suggesting that revisions of rates may simply reflect the state's commercial discretion and that courts cannot oversee every government action.
Mukul Rohatgi, former Attorney General and counsel for Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL), raised concerns about the maintainability of the SLP, stating that Dr. Nagam had filed numerous cases over the past decade as a form of harassment. He pointed to the CVC's prior findings regarding Dr. Nagam's complaints.
After thorough consideration of the arguments, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's discretion to decline the CBI investigation request. The bench concluded that the High Court had justified reasons for its decision, leading to the dismissal of the SLP on the grounds that it lacked merit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
BJP accuses Rahul Gandhi of making ‘immature' comments against Armed Forces
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Monday stated that Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi's credibility is at stake, citing the Supreme Court's remarks during the hearing of a criminal defamation case related to his December 2022 comments on Indo-China border tensions. At a press conference, BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia said: 'Such immature, anti-Army, and demoralising statements made without any evidence or facts, especially when our Army was engaged in the Galwan incident, raise serious questions. Why does Rahul Gandhi make such statements? This is a big question. And it is a question about his credibility.' 'The question arises: Does India deserve a more responsible and better Leader of Opposition? As a Leader of the Opposition, who has taken an oath under the Constitution to safeguard the sovereignty of our country, is he destroying that very sovereignty? ...is he helping the nations which are inimical to our country? Is he demoralising the brave Indian armed forces?' the BJP leader asked. Quoting the Supreme Court's remarks, Mr. Bhatia alleged that this was not the first time Mr. Gandhi had displayed 'such an anti-India' mindset. He referred to another defamation case involving comments by the Congress leader about V.D. Savarkar. 'We all know that the commission-hungry Congress failed to procure Rafale jets for 10 years. Prime Minister Narendra Modi made sure that the Air Force received these aircraft. Displaying similar immaturity, Rahul Gandhi used inappropriate language for the Prime Minister. Subsequently, the Supreme Court's decision affirmed that the addition of Rafale jets strengthened the Air Force and was in India's national interest,' Mr. Bhatia added.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Ex-SSP & DSP among 5 cops jailed till death in 1993 Tarn Taran fake encounter case
Mohali: A special CBI court on Monday sentenced five former Punjab Police officials — including an SSP and DSP —to be jailed till death for the abduction, torture, and staged killing of seven innocent persons in 1993, three of whom were Special Police Officers (SPOs). The court said only their age had stopped them from going to the gallows but they deserved no leniency as their conduct was "morally bankrupt and profoundly inhumane". All the convicts are between 66 and 80 years of age, and one is wheelchair-bound. The verdict was pronounced by special CBI judge Baljinder Singh Sra, who also imposed a fine of Rs 3.5 lakh on each convict, amounting to a total of Rs 17.5 lakh, which will be distributed equally among the kin of the seven victims, said CBI public prosecutor Anmol Narang. Those convicted include former SSP Bhupinderjit Singh, former DSP Davinder Singh, ex-inspector Suba Singh, and ASIs Gulbarg Singh and Raghbir Singh. They were sentenced under various sections of IPC, including murder, criminal conspiracy, causing disappearance of evidence, and fabricating records. The convicts had filed mercy pleas, citing old age and health issues, but the court rejected any leniency on those grounds. In its scathing observations, the court remarked, "There is no doubt regarding the sheer venality and callousness with which the convicts acted, reflecting an utter disregard for human dignity and life. Their conduct was not only unlawful — it was morally bankrupt and profoundly inhumane. However, in view of their advanced age and the prolonged agony endured during the course of the trial, this court refrains from awarding capital punishment. " Victims' counsel, advocate Sarabjeet Singh Verka, said the judgment comes after a protracted legal battle that spanned over three decades. "Justice has been delayed, but not denied. The families waited 32 years for this day," Verka said, adding that five other co-accused in the case died during the trial. The case pertains to the killing of seven young men from Rani Willa village in Tarn Taran — SPOs Shinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Desa Singh, Balkar Singh alias Kala, Sarabjit Singh alias Saba, Harwinder Singh, and Mangal Singh According to the CBI investigation, the victims were abducted by police teams in June-July 1993 and killed in two fake encounters on July 12 and July 28, 1993. The court accepted CBI's findings that the killings were not genuine encounters, but planned executions involving abduction, illegal detention, torture, and the eventual staging of deaths to pass them off as militant killings. The investigation revealed that inspector Gurdev Singh, then SHO of Sirhali, led the abduction of four victims on June 27, 1993. The other three were abducted by SHO of Verowal, Suba Singh, in July. CBI prosecutor Anmol Narang said the prosecution cited 67 witnesses, but 36 died during the trial. Only 28 witnesses could ultimately testify. Families Expected Death Sentence Family members of the fake-encounter victims wept upon hearing the verdict. "It's a moment of justice we thought would never come," said one of the relatives outside the courtroom. They expected the death sentence but are satisfied with the verdict. The widows demanded salary arrears and pension according to their husbands' remuneration and demanded govt jobs on compassionate grounds for their sons. The kin of the victims said that they have not conducted last rites or 'Bhog' of their men killed by Punjab police as their bodies were never found. Most of the women became widows within two to three years of their marriages.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC pulls up Rahul for 'Chinese thrashing our soldiers' remark
. NEW DELHI: Rahul Gandhi , the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, got a rap on his knuckles on Monday from the Supreme Court for his 2022 statement - Chinese are "thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh" - while criticising the government for its handling of the Galwan Valley clash at the LAC. "If you were a true Indian, you would not say all this," the apex court told him. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih lambasted Rahul for making allegations that China captured 2,000 sq km of Indian territory and asked him whether he was present there. It made it clear to him that as leader of opposition he cannot go on saying whatever he wants. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, defended him saying, "if he cannot say these things which are published in the Press, he cannot be a leader of opposition". However, he agreed that the statement could have been worded better. SC's censure came during the hearing on Rahul's plea for staying a defamation case filed against him over his claim about Indian jawans having been walloped by the Chinese during the Galwan standoff. After the hearing, the court stayed the defamation proceedings against him but not before giving him an earful. "Tell, Dr Singhvi, how do you get to know that 2,000 sq km of Indian territory was occupied by the Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material? Why do you make these statements without you were a true Indian, you would not say all this if there is a conflict at the border," the bench said.
