Supreme Court stays trial in two cases involving Azam Khan's son Abdullah
Allahabad High Court
directing
Rampur's MP-MLA court
to proceed with the trial in two cases linked to former MLA and senior
Samajwadi Party
leader
Azam Khan
's son
Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan
.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh also issued notice to the
Uttar Pradesh government
on an appeal filed by Abdullah.
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Please select course:
Select a Course Category
Design Thinking
Public Policy
Operations Management
Healthcare
Data Science
Others
Product Management
Degree
Data Analytics
PGDM
Management
Technology
Leadership
Digital Marketing
CXO
Data Science
Project Management
Artificial Intelligence
Skills you'll gain:
Duration:
25 Weeks
IIM Kozhikode
CERT-IIMK PCP DTIM Async India
Starts on
undefined
Get Details
Skills you'll gain:
Duration:
22 Weeks
IIM Indore
CERT-IIMI DTAI Async India
Starts on
undefined
Get Details
On July 23, the high court dismissed two petitions filed by Abdullah challenging the proceedings of criminal cases against him. The first case is related to Abdullah's alleged fake passport and the second case to his obtaining two PAN cards.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Secure Your Child's Future with Strong English Fluency
Planet Spark
Learn More
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the instant application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed," the high court said.
Abdullah filed separate petitions in the high court concerning the two cases requesting it to set aside the entire criminal proceedings of the ongoing trials in Rampur's MP/MLA court.
Live Events
BJP MLA Akash Saxena
had filed a case against Abdullah in Rampur on July 30, 2019, alleging fraud and violation of the Passport Act for allegedly obtaining the travel document using an incorrect date of birth.
According to the complaint, Abdullah was issued a passport on January 10, 2018. The passport lists the date of birth as September 30, 1990 but his educational certificates say January 1, 1993.
Saxena also filed an FIR against Abdullah and father Azam Khan at the Civil Lines police station in Rampur on December 6, 2019.
Saxena alleged that Abdullah had furnished an incorrect PAN number in his election affidavit during the 2017 assembly elections. Saxena also accused Azam Khan of being a fraudster and a liar, claiming that the senior SP leader got two PAN cards made for his son through fraud to enable him to contest elections.
According to him, Abdullah allegedly concealed this fact in the affidavit submitted to the Election Commission. He showed one PAN number in the affidavit, but used another number in his income tax return documents.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Congress, 'China guru' Rahul Gandhi hate Indian armed forces: BJP
After the Supreme Court rapped Rahul Gandhi over his alleged derogatory remarks about the Army, the BJP on Monday claimed that the "China guru" and his party hate Indian armed forces and that he is being remote controlled by foreign forces. The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the proceedings against Gandhi before a Lucknow court over his remarks about the Army during his December 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra. The court, however, censured the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha, saying if he is a true Indian, he would not say such a thing. Reacting to the development, BJP IT department head Amit Malviya said in a post on X, "The Supreme Court has once again reprimanded 'China Guru' Rahul Gandhi for making irresponsible statements concerning India's national security and territorial integrity." "Imagine, a leader of the opposition being repeatedly rebuked for speaking such recklessly," he said. Malviya also took on the Congress leader over his recent "dead" economy remark, calling it "a diplomatic disaster on multiple fronts". "His recent 'dead economy' jibe is just the latest in a long series. In doing so, he implicitly admitted that Russia, a long-standing ally, is struggling, while bizarrely endorsing a hostile state like Pakistan as having a robust economy," he said. Echoing US President Donald Trump's criticism of the Indian economy, Gandhi said on August 1 that everybody except Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman know that the country's economy is "dead". Referring to Gandhi's remarks on the surgical strike and Operation Sindoor, BJP national spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla alleged that the Congress leader and his party "hate" Indian armed forces. "Sena ka Apman Congress ki pehchan (Insulting the Congress is the hallmark of the Congress)," he said in a post on X. "Rahul and Congress hate Indian Armed Forces," he charged, adding, "Today SC has slammed him." Another BJP national spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said on X that the Supreme Court's poser to Gandhi about his claim exposed him. He said, "Supreme Court asks Rahul Gandhi - 'How did you know that China had occupied land?'" This question by the Supreme Court has not only "exposed" Gandhi, but further got the attention back on the "secret MoU that Gandhi-Vadra family had with China", he said.
Economic Times
9 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Supreme Court agrees to examine plea to repeal Bodh Gaya temple law
PTI Mahabodhi Temple, known as Mahabodhi Mahavihara, in Bodh Gaya, Gaya district, Bihar. The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea for repealing the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949 and replacing it with a central law for the proper control, management and administration of Mahabodhi temple in Bihar. The Mahabodhi Temple Complex in Bihar's Bodh Gaya, a UNESCO World Heritage site, is one of the four holy areas related to the life of Lord Gautam Buddha. Bodh Gaya is a place where Lord Buddha is believed to have attained enlightenment. The plea, which has also challenged the validity of the 1949 Act, came up for hearing before a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh. The petitioner's counsel said a plea with identical prayers was pending in the apex court. The bench issued notice to the Centre and others seeking their responses on the petition and tagged it for hearing along with the pending plea. The plea has sought to declare the 1949 Act as unconstitutional alleging it was "inconsistent" with Article 13 of the Constitution. Article 13 relates to laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. The petition has also sought a direction to the authorities concerned to remove encroachments made in the premises of the Bodh Gaya temple for the exclusive worship of Buddhists around the world in order to manage, control and administer the religious, faith, belief and worship in the interest of justice. On June 30, the apex court refused to entertain a separate plea challenging the vires of the 1949 Act and asked the petitioner to moved high court concerned. The 1949 Act relates to the better management of the temple. The Mahabodhi Temple Complex comprises a 50-metre high grand temple, the Vajrasana, the sacred Bodhi tree and six other sacred sites of Buddha's enlightenment, surrounded by numerous ancient votive stupas, well maintained and protected by inner, middle and outer circular boundaries. A seventh sacred place, the Lotus Pond, is located outside the enclosure to the south. Both the temple area and the Lotus Pond are surrounded by circulating passages at two or three levels, and the area of the ensemble is 5 metres below the level of the surrounding land.
Scroll.in
9 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC questions Uttar Pradesh's ‘tearing hurry' in promulgating Banke Bihari temple ordinance
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the 'tearing hurry' with which the Uttar Pradesh government promulgated the 2025 Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, which permitted it to take over the management of the shrine in Mathura district's Vrindavan, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions against the ordinance. It also expressed disapproval of the 'clandestine manner' in which the state government, by filing an application in a civil dispute, secured permission through a May 15 judgement to use temple funds for the development of a corridor. The May 15 verdict permitted the state government to use temple funds to acquire five acres of land to develop a corridor that is estimated to cost Rs 500 crore, India Today reported. However, this was allowed on the condition that the land should be registered in the name of the deity. On Monday, the bench verbally proposed to recall the directions in the May 15 verdict, Live Law reported. It also proposed the formation of a committee headed by a retired judge to oversee the management of the temple while the validity of the ordinance was being decided by the High Court. The bench then adjourned the hearing of the petitions against the ordinance till Tuesday. During the proceedings, advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the former management of the temple, told the court that the ordinance ejected the Goswamis, who were earlier managing the temple, and vested the state government with the management, Live Law reported. He added that the directions in the May 15 judgement were passed 'behind the back of the management' as they were not heard. The verdict came in a case that dealt with a private dispute between two sects, the advocate added. The state government intervened in the private dispute and secured the orders for the utilisation of the temple funds, he added. The lawyer for the former management of the temple urged the court to issue a status quo order and further questioned the need for the state government to urgently promulgate an ordinance. 'Ordinance is for emergency measures,' Live Law quoted Divan as having said. The bench then asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the state government, how the May 15 judgment could be justified when the affected parties were not heard. Kant criticised the manner in which the directions were passed without notice to the affected parties. 'A public notice could have been issued,' Live Law quoted Kant as having said. 'It was not a case of No Man's Land. Someone had to be heard on the behalf of the temple… Temple funds will have to be utilised for pilgrims, can't be pocketed by private persons.' He also added that the state government had filed an application in the dispute in a 'clandestine manner', adding that this was unacceptable. The judge asked why the state government did not acquire the land as per the law after paying compensation. 'What was the tearing hurry for the ordinance?' Live Law quoted Kant as having asked. The case The Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan has historically been managed privately. In 2023, the Allahabad High Court permitted the development of a corridor that was proposed by the Uttar Pradesh government, Live Law reported. However, it restrained the state government from using Rs 262.5 crore from the temple fund for its construction. In March, the High Court appointed advocate Sanjay Goswami as an amicus curiae to assist in resolving management-related issues. Subsequently, the state government promulgated the 2025 Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance. It proposed the creation of a statutory trust with several state government officials as ex-officio trustees. On May 15, the Supreme Court modified the 2023 order issued by the High Court. The bench allowed the state government to use temple funds to acquire five acres of land around the temple for the development of the corridor. The verdict came in a private dispute between two sects
