Latest news with #CJIGavai-ledBench
Hans India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Cannot ignore Pahalgam: SC on J&K statehood pleas
The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed caution over an early hearing on a clutch of applications seeking a time-bound restoration of Jammu and Kashmir's (J&K) statehood. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran pointed to the 'ground realities' and the recent Pahalgam terror attack as it acceded to the Centre's request to list the matter after eight weeks. 'You will also have to take into consideration the ground realities. You cannot ignore what has happened in Pahalgam,' the CJI Gavai-led Bench told the applicants seeking an earlier hearing. The apex court was hearing applications arguing that the continued delay in restoring statehood is "gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism". The applications contended that the failure to restore statehood within a time-bound framework amounts to a violation of federalism, which forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. 'It has been 21 months since the Article 370 judgment. There has been no movement towards the restoration of statehood,' submitted senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, adding that the Constitution Bench had trusted the Union government when the Solicitor General assured it that statehood would be restored. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, questioning the maintainability of the applications, urged the apex court to consider the 'peculiar position' in J&K and sought that the pleas be listed after eight weeks, saying this was not the 'correct stage' to consider the matter. 'These applications are not maintainable. We had assured two things: The election would be held, and thereafter, statehood. Your lordships are aware of the peculiar position emerging from this part of our country. There are several considerations,' said SG Mehta. 'I don't know why, at this stage, this issue is agitated, but list it after 8 weeks. I will take instructions. My prayer is for eight weeks because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the water,' Mehta added. After hearing the submissions, the CJI Gavai-led Bench sought the Union government's stand on the matter and posted it for hearing after eight weeks. In the 're: Article 370 of the Constitution' verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on an oral statement made on the Centre's behalf that statehood would be restored to J&K. In the course of the oral hearing, the Solicitor General, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had submitted that the Union Home Ministry cannot give any exact timeframe and it would take "some time" for the restoration of statehood in J&K.
India.com
20-05-2025
- Politics
- India.com
SC Agrees to Hear Plea Seeking FIR Against Justice Varma In Cash Row Tomorrow
The Supreme Court is slated to hear on Wednesday a plea seeking criminal prosecution of Justice Yashwant Varma, who is embroiled in a controversy surrounding the alleged discovery of a huge pile of burnt cash in the storeroom attached to his bungalow in the national capital after the fire brigade had gone there to douse a blaze on March 14. As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan will hear the matter on May 21. On Monday, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai told advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, the lead petitioner-in-person, that the apex court may take up the plea for hearing on May 20. After Nedumpara submitted that he would be unavailable on Tuesday, the CJI Gavai-led Bench agreed to list the matter on May 21. Last week, declining to give an out-of-turn hearing, the CJI Gavai-led Bench told Nedumpara to follow the "mentioning procedure", which requires sending an email to the apex court registry for urgent listing of the petition. If Justice Varma has committed the offence of accumulating wealth through corrupt means, an impeachment by itself will not suffice, said the petition, demanding his criminal prosecution. "What has happened is a grave crime against public justice. When it is a judge, the defender of justice who is himself the accused or culprit, then it is no ordinary offence, the gravity is far greater, and so must be the punishment. [I]t is imperative that criminal law is set into motion, the matter is thoroughly investigated, and most importantly, ascertain who were bribe givers/beneficiaries and what was the cause/judgment in which justice was purchased," said the petition. "It was indisputable that the huge volumes of money that were burned and partly burned and clandestinely removed were nothing but bribe/corruption -- a crime punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Prevention of Corruption Act. There was no official explanation as to why no FIR was registered and why the criminal law was not set into motion, which would have meant the seizure of the currency notes securing the crime location, the arrest of suspects, etc.," added the plea. In the last week of March, a bench of Justices Oka and Bhuyan disposed of another plea filed by the same petitioners seeking direction to the Delhi Police to register an FIR and cause an effective and meaningful investigation into the cash-discovery allegations. "The 'in-house' inquiry is ongoing. If the report finds something wrong, an FIR could be directed, or the matter could be referred to the Parliament. Today is not the time to consider (the registration of FIR)," the bench had remarked then. Questioning the non-registration of an FIR on March 14 itself, the day when unaccounted cash was reportedly found, the petition said the delay on the part of the authorities concerned to make available to the public the electronic records leads to the irresistible inference that what was going on was an attempt at a cover-up. Following the alleged cash discovery, which sent shockwaves across the judicial corridors, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had constituted a 3-member committee to conduct an inquiry against Justice Varma. Amid the in-house probe, Justice Varma was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium had earlier recommended that the Centre repatriate Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court. Earlier, this month, then CJI Khanna had forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister the report of the top court-appointed in-house enquiry panel. "Chief Justice of India, in terms of the In-House Procedure, has written to Hon'ble the President of India and Hon'ble the Prime Minister of India enclosing therewith copy of the 3-Member Committee report dated 03.05.2025 along with the letter/response dated 06.05.2025 received from Mr Justice Yashwant Varma," said a press statement released by the apex court on May 8.
Hans India
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Remarks against Col Sofiya Qureshi: SC to hear MP Minister's plea seeking quashing of FIR on Monday
The Supreme Court is slated to hear on Monday a plea filed by Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister Vijay Shah against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing an FIR against him over his controversial remarks on Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh will take up the matter for hearing on May 19. Earlier on Friday (May 16), due to paucity of time, the Justice Kant-led Bench couldn't take up Shah's special leave petition (SLP) for hearing and on the petitioner's request, directed listing the matter for hearing on Monday. A day before, when Shah's lawyer sought urgent listing of his SLP filed before the apex court, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai slammed the Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister for his distasteful remarks. "What sort of statement are you (Shah) making? Such a person holding a constitutional office is expected to exercise a degree of restraint. Every sentence uttered by a minister has to be with responsibility," said the CJI Gavai-led Bench. To this, senior advocate Vibha Dutta Makhija, representing Vijay Shah, said that the media overhyped the minister's comments, and he has already issued an apology. Makhija prayed for an interim order directing that no coercive action be taken against Vijay Shah under the FIR registered under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Without passing any interim order, the CJI Gavai-led Bench had agreed to hear the matter on May 16, and advised the senior counsel to apprise the Madhya Pradesh HC about the listing of the SLP. On May 14, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had ordered the Director General of Police (DGP) to register a criminal case against Shah within four hours and warned the DGP of contempt action in case of any delay in compliance. A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Anuradha Shukla of the MP High Court said that prima facie, an offence of promoting enmity between different castes, religion and language was made out. The Justice Sreedharan-led Bench opined that referring to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a "sister of terrorists" is an offence of hurting the sentiments and faith of the Muslim community. Talking about Operation Sindoor, Vijay Shah had reportedly said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had sent a "sister from the same community" as those in Pakistan to avenge the April 22 terror strike in Kashmir's Pahalgam. "PM Modi is striving for the society. Those who widowed our daughters (in Pahalgam), we sent a sister of their own to teach them a lesson," Shah had said. The distasteful remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, the Indian Army officer who briefed the media throughout Operation Sindoor against Pakistan, sparked nationwide outrage. Following the incident, the Minister apologised from the "bottom of his heart" and said he respects the Armed Forces and mentioned Colonel Sofiya as "sister". "I, Vijay Shah, am not only ashamed and saddened by my recent statement, which has hurt the sentiments of every community, but I also apologise from the bottom of my heart. Our country's sister Sofia Qureshi ji has worked rising above caste and society while fulfilling her national duty," he said in a video message posted on the social media platform X. In his petition filed before the Supreme Court, Shah sought quashing of the FIR as well as the suo motu proceedings initiated by the MP High Court.
