Latest news with #ASOka
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC quashes trial court order in ED's Rathi Steel case over BNSS lapse
The Supreme Court has set aside the cognisance of a prosecution complaint (equivalent to a chargesheet) taken by a lower court in a money laundering trial involving M/s Rathi Steel and its top executive, who were booked by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a coal allocation case . A division bench comprising Justices AS Oka (who retired last month) and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the cognisance order dated November 20, 2024, solely on the ground of "non-compliance" with new provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These provisions require trial courts to issue a show-cause notice to an accused before summoning them to face trial. Clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ED's complaint, the bench directed executive Kushal Kumar Agarwal to appear before the trial court on July 14, "so that he can be given an opportunity of being heard in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS." The order also stated, "We make it clear that no further notice shall be issued by the Special (trial) Court to the appellant (Agarwal)." Section 223 of the BNSS applies specifically to "complaints" and not to cases investigated by the police or the CBI. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, representing the petitioners, argued that under Section 223, accused persons are entitled to be heard before being summoned by the trial court. He emphasized that this section stipulates that "no cognisance of an offence shall be taken by the magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard." In response, ED's counsel argued that under the new BNSS provision, the hearing granted to the accused is limited to determining whether a case is made out to proceed based solely on the complaint and its accompanying documents. The ED further contended that cognisance is taken of the offence-not the offender. Thus, once cognisance is taken, it need not be taken again when supplementary or further complaints are filed. "Therefore, at that stage, there will be no occasion to give the accused the opportunity to be heard," the ED's counsel argued. Addressing these arguments, the Supreme Court stated in its order that the ED's submissions "need not be considered, as the same do not arise in this appeal at this stage." However, it added, "We make it clear that the said contentions are expressly kept open and can be raised before the Special Court."
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court quashes cognisance in ED case against Rathi Steel & Its
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the cognisance of a prosecution complaint (equivalent to a chargesheet) taken by a lower court in a money laundering trial involving M/s Rathi Steel and its top executive, who were booked by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a coal allocation case.A division bench comprising Justices AS Oka (who retired last month) and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the cognisance order dated November 20, 2024, solely on the ground of "non-compliance" with new provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These provisions require trial courts to issue a show-cause notice to an accused before summoning them to face that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ED's complaint, the bench directed executive Kushal Kumar Agarwal to appear before the trial court on July 14, "so that he can be given an opportunity of being heard in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS." The order also stated, "We make it clear that no further notice shall be issued by the Special (trial) Court to the appellant (Agarwal)."Section 223 of the BNSS applies specifically to "complaints" and not to cases investigated by the police or the CBI. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, representing the petitioners, argued that under Section 223, accused persons are entitled to be heard before being summoned by the trial court. He emphasized that this section stipulates that "no cognisance of an offence shall be taken by the magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard."In response, ED's counsel argued that under the new BNSS provision, the hearing granted to the accused is limited to determining whether a case is made out to proceed based solely on the complaint and its accompanying ED further contended that cognisance is taken of the offence-not the offender. Thus, once cognisance is taken, it need not be taken again when supplementary or further complaints are filed. "Therefore, at that stage, there will be no occasion to give the accused the opportunity to be heard," the ED's counsel these arguments, the Supreme Court stated in its order that the ED's submissions "need not be considered, as the same do not arise in this appeal at this stage." However, it added, "We make it clear that the said contentions are expressly kept open and can be raised before the Special Court."
New Indian Express
24-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
‘She didn't see it as crime': SC refrains from sentencing Pocso convict married to survivor
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refrained from sentencing a convict under the POCSO Act on the ground that he married the survivor of his sexual assault and remarked that the case highlighted the 'lacunae in our legal system'. Its verdict said, 'The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her. Now, she is at a stage where she is desperate to save her husband. She is emotionally committed to the accused and has become very possessive about her small family. The facts of the case are an eye-opener for everyone. It highlights the lacuna in our legal system.' The survivor was 14 years old at the time of the offence in 2018. The verdict by a two-judge bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan came in a suo motu case the SC initiated in the wake of a Calcutta High Court ruling that had asked adolescent girls to 'control' their sexual urges instead of 'giving in to two minutes of pleasure'. In December 2023, the SC had said that the High Court's comments were sweeping, objectionable, irrelevant, preachy and unwarranted.
India Today
23-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Maternity leave integral to rights: Court on benefits extended to working women
The Supreme Court on Friday observed that maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits and reproductive rights are now recognised as part of several intersecting domains of international human rights law, setting aside a Madras High Court order which denied the facility to a government teacher who was awaiting the birth of her third child. The high court had cited state policy restricting benefits to two bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan in its verdict noted that there is a need to "harmonise" the policy objective of population control and maternity benefits for women employees."We have delved into the concept of reproductive rights and have held that maternity benefits are a part of reproductive rights and maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Therefore, the impugned order has been set aside," the bench noted. "Reproductive rights are now recognised as part of several intersecting domains of international human rights law viz. the right to health, right to privacy, right to equality and non-discrimination and the right to dignity," it top court made a distinction between her first two pregnancies and the third one when it came to availing the benefits of the state policy on maternity IS THE CASE?advertisementThe order was pronounced in an appeal filed by a Tamil Nadu-based government school teacher, who had two biological children with her first husband, born in 2007 and 2011. She then entered government service in 2012, as a school couple parted ways after a divorce in 2017, and the woman got married again in 2019. In 2021, she applied for maternity leave of nine months, but was authorities noted that the maternity leave benefit was available only for "up to two living children". This being her third pregnancy, with two children living with her first husband, would make her teacher moved the high court challenging the denial of maternity leave. While a single-judge bench accepted her argument and granted maternity leave, the Tamil Nadu government filed a counter-appeal. A Division bench of the high court then set aside the single-judge order. The division bench also held that the grant of maternity leave was not a fundamental petitioner approached the Supreme Court against this NADU GOVERNMENT'S STANDThe Tamil Nadu government in its submissions noted that the rules relating to maternity benefits bar the grant of maternity benefits beyond the second state government's counsel also argued that any deviation from the established policy would potentially overwhelm the exchequer and impact administrative efficacy. Further, he claimed that this would amount to incentivising the breach of population control COURT OBSERVATIONadvertisementThe Supreme Court has held that the appellant teacher shall be granted maternity leave under FR 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu rules. It has also directed the state to release the maternity benefits that apply to be released within two months."In the context of employment, childbirth has to be construed as a natural incident of life and, hence, provisions for maternity leave must be construed in that perspective,' observed the InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court#Tamil Nadu
Indian Express
23-05-2025
- Indian Express
Supreme Court declines to sentence man convicted in POCSO case: Victim will be worst sufferer, they are raising child together
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the conviction of a man for sexually assaulting a minor girl in 2018 but refused to sentence him after noting that they were now married, had a daughter and the victim would be the worst sufferer if the convict was jailed again. A bench of Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said in its judgement: 'We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and hold that though the accused stands convicted, he will not undergo sentence…'. The top court had asked the West Bengal government to set up a committee of three experts to meet the victim. 'After having read the reports (of the Committee) and having interacted with the Committee as well as the victim, we are of the view that if we send the accused to jail, the worst sufferer will be the victim herself. As compared to the situation in 2018, she is better placed today. Now she is comfortable with her small family. She, along with the accused, is concentrating on their daughter and they want to ensure that she gets quality education. At the same time, as recorded in the final report, the victim is attending school and is desperate to complete her school education. Though the State has offered to enrol her in some vocational course, she is keen on completing her education, at least up to graduation,' said Justice Oka, writing for the bench. The court said: 'In law, we have no option but to sentence the accused and send him to jail for undergoing the minimum punishment prescribed by the statute. However, in this case, the society, the family of the victim and the legal system have done enough injustice to the victim. She has been subjected to enough trauma and agony. We do not want to add to the injustice done to the victim by sending her husband to jail. We as Judges, cannot shut our eyes to these harsh realities.' 'Now, at this stage, in order to do real justice to the victim, the only option left before us is to ensure that the accused is not separated from the victim. The State and the society must ensure that the family is rehabilitated till the family settles down in all respects,' it said. The girl was 14 when she left with the man who was then 25. A girl was subsequently born to them. A delay in the investigation meant the accused was arrested only on December 19, 2021. A trial court convicted him of offences punishable under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and under the IPC Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc), 376 (2)(n) (repeated rape on same woman) and 376 (3) (rape on woman under 16 years). After an appeal, the Calcutta High Court acquitted him on October 18, 2023 of the charges under Section 6 of POCSO and Section 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC. The court noted in its judgment that the victim's mother had disowned her and she was residing with the accused along with their child. But it sentenced him to 20 years in jail for the POCSO offence and four years for offences under the IPC Sections 363 and 366. The apex court took suo motu cognisance of the matter after certain observations in the HC judgement sparked outrage. On August 20, 2024, the top court set aside the HC judgement and restored the trial court decision convicting him under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 376 (3), besides Section 6 of POCSO Act. It also confirmed his acquittal under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The court, however, postponed the sentencing. After perusing the committee report and hearing all parties, the court said: 'This case is an illustration of the complete failure of our society and our legal system. All that the system can do for the victim now, is to help her fulfil her desire of completing her education, settling down in life, providing a better education to her daughter and ensuring overall better living conditions for her family.' The SC said, 'this year we have completed 75 years of the Constitution on 26th January. The Constitution contemplates the State to be a welfare state. The Constitution guaranteed social and economic justice to all the citizens. In this case, there is a failure to provide both social and economic justice to the victim. The facts of the case indicate failure of the concept of welfare state. To remedy the situation in this case, it is the obligation of the State Government to act as the true guardian of the victim and her child and ensure that they settle down in life and lead a happy, healthy and constructive life ahead.' The bench also issued some directions to the state government for the welfare of the girl and child. It also issued notice to the Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development shall appoint a Committee of experts to deal with the suggestions given by the amici curiae in the case.
