SC sends Anurag Thakur, others to Delhi HC following dispute over BFI elections
The Supreme Court on Monday transferred all ongoing litigation on the Boxing Federation of India (BFI) elections lying before the Himachal Pradesh high court to the Delhi HC to streamline the adjudication process and prevent conflicting judicial outcomes.
The top court said that cases pending before the Himachal Pradesh high court, including those filed by BJP leader and former Union sports minister Anurag Thakur, and the Himachal Pradesh Boxing Association (HPBA), will stand disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to either initiate fresh proceedings before the Delhi HC or join existing cases already pending hearing there.
A bench comprising justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order with the consent of all parties involved. The respondents, including BFI, agreed not to raise objections on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction before the Delhi HC.
The apex court noted that it was preferable for one forum to consider all related disputes. 'Ideally, we should have the viewpoint of one high court,' the SC said.
The top court clarified that the stay granted earlier by a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh HC, which had halted the BFI election process, will continue to remain in force for the next six weeks. The SC gave all parties the liberty to seek the continuation or modification of such stay before the Delhi HC.
Thakur had moved the Supreme Court challenging his exclusion from contesting the presidential election for BFI. He, along with the HPBA, filed the plea against the Himachal Pradesh HC order that effectively halted the BFI election process.
In his plea, Thakur, an executive member of HPBA, a state unit affiliated with the BFI, argued that he was lawfully nominated by the association to contest the presidential elections scheduled for March 28. However, he claimed that his nomination was arbitrarily rejected on March 18 without a notice or a hearing, allegedly at the behest of former BFI president Ajay Singh.
The disqualification was based on a March 7 notification issued by Singh, the outgoing BFI president. The notification restricted electoral participation to elected members of affiliated state units, effectively barring Thakur and several others. Petitioners argued that the notification was not only arbitrary and in breach of the BFI's Memorandum of Association, but also violative of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.
While a single judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh HC initially stayed Thakur's disqualification and directed BFI to reopen nominations, a division bench later overturned this order citing lack of jurisdiction, prompting Thakur and the other petitioners to move the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, however, refrained from examining the contention that the dispute had become infructuous owing to changes in the international recognition status of BFI.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
28 minutes ago
- Hans India
Section 4 crisis to be resolved soon; will appeal to Centre, SC: Khandre
Bengaluru: Under Section 4 of the Forest Act 1963, the government has the option to abandon the land allocated before the notification, and a special proposal will be submitted to the Centre and the Supreme Court to provide justice to the people who have built houses and are cultivating for 30-40 years after the notification, said Forest, Ecology and Environment Minister Eshwara B Khandre. Presiding over a meeting held with Chikkamagaluru district MLAs and forest and revenue department officials at Vikas Soudha, he said that a request will be submit-ted to the Supreme Court and the Centre to give an alternative to the designated forest with residential areas, patta land, etc. and the land allocated after the Section 4 notification, and to abandon this land from the forest area. In many cases, even though Section 4 has been notified for 60-70 years, Section 17 is still not in effect. After the implementation of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, it has become difficult to abandon such forests. Therefore, it is imperative to appeal to the Center and the Supreme Court. Chikkamagaluru district is in the Western Ghats and there is a rich forest area here. There is 300-400 acres of land in a single survey number, and there is confusion because there is no joint survey. In this context, he told the officials to conduct a joint survey of forest and revenue land and try to resolve the problem quickly. The survey number in the certificate submitted to the Supreme Court as a deemed forest also includes houses, government schools, government buildings, and land plots. Now that we have finally got the opportunity to submit a report to the Supreme Court, we can submit a petition to the Supreme Court by conducting a proper survey and determining the amount of land eligible for abandonment, and by providing revenue land elsewhere as an alternative and cultivating a forest there, Ishwar Khandre Forest Minister also instructed that the deemed forest certificate, which was al-ready submitted to the Supreme Court in 2022, be uploaded on the department's of-ficial website to make it available to the public. Responding to the request of the MLAs that the current 10 km buffer zone around the bear sanctuary in Arsikere limits of Hassan district is also causing hardship to the farmers of Chikkamagaluru in the border area, the Minister said that a proposal has been submitted to reduce this limit to 1 km. He assured that this problem will be resolved soon. Forest, Ecology and Environment Minister Eshwar B Khandre, who convened a meeting to discuss the problems being faced by the common people due to Section 4 of the Forest Act and the affected forest notification in Chikkamagaluru district, was thanked by MLAs Rajegowda, Thammanna, Nayana Motamma, Srinivas and Anand who participated in the meeting. Forest Force Chief Meenakshi Negi, Chief Wildlife Warden Subhash Malkade, PCCF BP Ravi, Biswajit Mishra, Chikkamagaluru District Commissioner Meena Na-garaj and others participated in the meeting.
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Kilmar Abrego Garcia charged with illegally transporting migrants
By Chris Strohm, Myles Miller and Bob Van Voris Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man mistakenly deported by the Trump administration to a prison in El Salvador, has been brought back to the US to face federal charges that he illegally transported undocumented immigrants within the country. Abrego Garcia was indicted by a grand jury in Tennessee in May, according to court filings. He appeared in a Tennessee courtroom Friday, hours after he was returned to the US, ABC reported. Attorney General Pam Bondi said an investigation determined that he was member of the criminal gang MS-13 and a 'danger to our community.' Abrego Garcia's case became a lightning rod over President Donald Trump's immigration policies, which have seen the administration move to ramp up deportations of undocumented migrants. The Supreme Court had told the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant and they agreed to return him to our country,' Bondi said at a press conference in Washington. 'Upon completion of sentence we anticipate he will be returned to his home country of El Salvador.' The US is seeking to have Abrego Garcia detained as a flight risk and a danger. The charges could result in him spending the rest of his life behind bars, prosecutors said. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along — that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' Andrew Rossman, a lawyer for Abrego Garcia, said in an emailed statement. 'It's now up to our judicial system to see that Mr. Abrego Garcia receives the due process that the constitution guarantees to all persons.' According to court documents, Abrego Garcia's role, with other unidentified people, was to pick up migrants in the Houston area after they'd illegally crossed the border into Texas, then move them to other parts of the country. Abrego Garcia and other members of the group also allegedly transported guns and drugs illegally purchased in Texas into Maryland. Before he was removed from the country, an immigration judge had ruled that Abrego Garcia could not be sent to his home country of El Salvador, finding that he would be at risk of harm under the Convention Against Torture. The government later admitted he'd been deported to El Salvador in error. After he was removed from the country in March, his lawyers asked a federal court in Maryland to order his return to the US. Abrego Garica was initially kept in El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, but was later moved to another facility. On April 10, the US Supreme Court agreed with US District Judge Paula Xinis that Abrego Garcia shouldn't have been deported and ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' his release from Salvadoran custody. Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele initially responded by claiming they had no power to return Abrego Garcia. Xinis then ordered the government to answer questions detailing its efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. A US appeals court upheld the order in a harshly critical opinion on April 17. 'Thanks to the bright light that has been shined on Abrego Garcia, this investigation continued,' Bondi said Friday. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democratic senator who visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, said that the administration will now 'have to make its case in the court of law.' 'For months the Trump administration flouted the Supreme Court and our Constitution,' Van Hollen said. 'Today, they appear to have finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States.'
