SC slams UP jail authorities for delay in releasing accused on bail, orders ₹5 lakh compensation
Jun 25, 2025 12:19 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed the Uttar Pradesh jail authorities for the delay in releasing an accused, who was granted bail by the apex court on April 29 in a case under the state's anti-conversion law. The bench directed that an inquiry be conducted by the principal district and sessions judge, Ghaziabad.(HT_PRINT)
A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh directed the state government to pay ad hoc monetary compensation of ₹ five lakh to the accused, who was released from district jail Ghaziabad on June 24.
"What do you propose to do to sensitise your officers?" the bench asked the Director General of Prisons of Uttar Pradesh who appeared before it through video-conferencing.
The bench said the officers must be sensitised about the importance of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
"Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed under the Constitution," the top court said.
The counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh said the accused was released from jail on Tuesday and an inquiry has been instituted to ascertain why the delay had happened.
The bench directed that the inquiry be conducted by the principal district and sessions judge, Ghaziabad, and a report be furnished before it.
The top court on Tuesday took strong exception after the accused claimed that he was not released on bail on grounds that a sub-section of a provision of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 was not mentioned in the bail order.
The bench had noted after the apex court granted bail to the man on April 29, a trial court in Ghaziabad on May 27 issued a release order to the superintendent jailor to release the accused from custody upon execution of the personal bond, unless liable to be detained in some other matter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
NSE's ₹1,388-cr settlement plea could pave way for IPO this fiscal
The National Stock Exchange (NSE) has agreed to settle the long-pending colocation and dark fibre case with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) for ₹1,388 crore — a move seen as crucial for advancing its initial public offering (IPO). Sources indicate that this settlement — the biggest ever, and the second such resolution for NSE — clears a major hurdle for its much-anticipated listing. The exchange filed its settlement application with Sebi on June 20. 'The settlement amount aligns with Sebi's regulations, and approval is expected soon, expediting the IPO process. The exchange has set its sights on concluding the IPO this fiscal,' said a person familiar with the matter. Queries sent to Sebi and the BSE remained unanswered. NSE is awaiting a no-objection certificate from Sebi to proceed with its draft IPO filings. Sebi Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey recently hinted at the impending settlement, stating that no further obstacles remain for the IPO. The colocation issue, currently before the Supreme Court, pertains to allegations that certain brokers received preferential server access at NSE between 2015 and 2016. If Sebi approves the settlement, it will need to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court to withdraw its appeal. In January 2023, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) upheld non-monetary penalties in the case but set aside a disgorgement order, instead imposing a ₹100 crore fine on NSE for due diligence lapses. Later that year, the Supreme Court directed Sebi to refund ₹300 crore to NSE related to the case. NSE had previously deposited ₹1,108 crore with Sebi in 2019 as part of penal actions. Sources indicate nearly ₹1,000 crore remains in an escrow account. In October 2023, NSE, former chief executive Vikram Limaye, and eight others settled a separate case involving misuse of trading access points (TAP) for ₹643 crore. Sebi also dropped charges against NSE and former executives in the colocation matter, citing insufficient evidence of collusion with OPG Securities. NSE's unlisted shares have surged 87 per cent over the past year, currently trading at ₹2,325 apiece, reflecting strong investor interest. The country's largest bourse is currently valued at nearly ₹6 trillion, dwarfing the valuations of several listed firms. 'From a market perspective, this resolution brings much-needed clarity and signals NSE's intent to prioritise governance and compliance. With this issue behind them, the path is now clearer for the exchange to move toward a public listing, and investor interest is likely to revive given NSE's strong fundamentals and dominant market position,' said Mrugank Paranjape, chairman, IMC Task Force on Capital Markets and managing partner, MCQube. Sebi has previously raised concerns about the independence of clearing corporations, emphasising public interest over commercial priorities. A working group is now reviewing fee structures to ensure sustainability. NSE may explore listing on the BSE or the Metropolitan Stock Exchange (MSEI), as self-listing is currently barred under Sebi rules. The country's only listed equity bourse, the BSE, is exclusively listed on the NSE. 'Under Sebi regulations, stock exchanges in India are not allowed to self-list in order to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure regulatory integrity. As a result, NSE cannot list on its own platform and will need to seek a listing on a competing exchange like BSE or MSEI,' said Uday Tardalkar, economist and market expert.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
NHRC takes suo motu cognisance of Odisha family's head tonsure after inter-caste marriage
New Delhi: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has taken suo motu cognisance of a media report that the family of a Scheduled Tribe woman was boycotted socially by the villagers after she married a Scheduled Caste man in Odisha. Reportedly, the villagers demanded a purification ritual if the family of the woman wanted to be accepted back into the community and were threatened with an indefinite boycott in case they refused to comply with the ritual. The family members of the woman succumbed to the diktat of the villagers, and as a part of the ritual, the heads of 40 members of her family were tonsured. The incident was reported from Baiganguda village of the Kashipur block of Rayagada district. Taking note of the news report, the apex human rights body said the contents of the press report, if true, raise a serious violation of the human rights of the victims. After a video of the family members sitting in a field with their heads shaved went viral on social media, the local administration ordered a detailed probe into the matter. A block-level official was sent to the village to investigate the incident. The NHRC issued a notice to the Odisha Chief Secretary and called for a detailed report on the matter within two weeks. Established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the NHRC, an autonomous statutory body, is an embodiment of India's concern for the promotion and protection of human rights. Its primary role is to protect and promote human rights, defined as the rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. The apex human rights body has the power to take suo motu (on its own motion) action based on media reports, public knowledge or other sources, without receiving a formal complaint of human rights violations.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Allowing probe agencies, police to summon lawyers threatens justice administration: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday said allowing police or probe agencies to directly summon lawyers for advising clients would seriously undermine the autonomy of legal profession and was a "direct threat" to the independence of justice administration. Allowing probe agencies, police to summon lawyers threatens justice administration: SC A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh observed the legal profession was an integral component of the process of administration of justice. "Permitting the investigating agencies/police to directly summon defense counsel or advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice," the apex court said. The bench also framed a couple of questions in the matter. "Some of the questions which arise for consideration are: when an individual has a association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police directly summon the lawyer for questioning?" the bench asked. The other question read, "Assuming that the investigating agency or prosecuting agency or police have a case that role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer but something more, even then, should they be directly permitted to summon or should a judicial oversight be prescribed for those exceptional criteria?" Both points aside from other issues, the bench said, could arise and require addressal on a comprehensive basis for "what is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously, and more importantly, fearlessly discharge their professional duties". The bench said since it was a matter directly impinging on the administration of justice, "to subject a professional... when he is a counsel in the matter... prima facie appears to be untenable, subject to further consideration by the court". The order came when the top court was hearing a plea of a Gujarat-based advocate, challenging an order of the high court passed on June 12. The high court on March 2025 refused to quash a notice summoning the lawyer before the police in a case against his client. The top court, however, directed the state not to summon him till further orders and stayed the operation of the police's notice issued to him. The bench also issued notice to Gujarat government, asking for its response. The top court noted an agreement was executed in June last year between two persons in a loan transaction. In February, one of them got an FIR registered against the other following which the accused was arrested. The top court noted the petitioner before it was engaged as a lawyer by the accused and he moved a bail application on behalf of his client before a sessions court in Ahmedabad. The court granted bail to the accused. However, a police notice in March summoned the lawyer to appear before police within three days. The issue assumes significance as the Enforcement Directorate on June 20 directed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate in a money laundering investigation being carried out against their client, adding that exception to this rule could only be made after "approval" by the agency's director. The probe agency's statement came in the wake of the lawyer-client privilege linked controversy stemming from ED's summons to senior Supreme Court lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. The counsel had offered legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited on the employee stock ownership plan given to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises. The summons was condemned by the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association , which called it a "disturbing trend" that struck at the very foundations of the legal profession. The bar bodies urged the chief justice of India to take suo motu cognisance of the matter. On Wednesday, the top court said lawyers engaged in legal practice, apart from their fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution, had certain rights and privileges guaranteed being legal professionals and further as a result of statutory provisions. Article 19 of the Constitution deals with right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Underlining the issue as important, the bench called for assistance of the attorney general, the solicitor general, chairperson of the Bar Council of India, and the presidents of the SCBA and SCAORA. The bench asked the case papers to be placed before the CJI for passing appropriate directions. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
