Latest news with #DelhiHC
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
How Bombay HC flagged the ‘torture' of accused to ‘extort' confessional statements as key ground to deflate ATS case
Acquitting the 12 accused in the train blasts case, the Bombay High Court on Monday flagged the torture inflicted upon them to 'extort' their confessional statements and found it to be one of key reasons that discarded and vitiated prosecution's case. 'The accused succeeded in establishing the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statement,' the HC said. The HC said that confessional statements were 'not found truthful and complete on various grounds, including some portions of the same were found to be similar and copied.' The lawyers representing the accused including senior advocate S Murlidhar (former Delhi HC judge) had argued that the accused persons were languishing in jail for nearly 18 years based on confessional statements taken by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) through 'torture' in the form of beating, threatening and inducement and lost their prime years of lives in incarceration. The accused claimed that their torture was corroborated by medical evidence to 'very substantial degree,' which should render their confessions irrelevant in law under Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act. The HC observed that one of the accused, Mohammad Sajid Margub Ansari was 'fainting' while he was taken for medical examination on October 24, 2006 and he was advised Rantac tablet, ORS and glucose water. It is significant to note, the HC said that the report of the said date was before recording Part-1 of Ansari's confessional statement which mentioned that he was fainting while being examined. 'This remark speaks volume about the physical and mental condition of accused just before recording of Part-I of his confession. Therefore, the evidence discussed above casts serious doubt on the likelihood that torture was inflicted on accused to extort confession,' the court observed. It added that prosecution was 'not able to effectively refute' defence's allegations of torture and evidence of accused 'remained unshaken.' 'Thus, in view of language of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, we are of the opinion that the confessional statement of the accused is inadmissible in law,' the HC held. The court also perused medical evidence of doctors of KEM and Bhabha Hospital related to accused Mohamad Majid Mohamad Shafi and noted that it 'sufficiently hinted at the possibility of torture being inflicted on the accused to extort a confession.' The HC also referred to 'torture inflicted' on other accused while recording their confessional statements. The HC observed that before recording confessional statements, the authority has to ascertain whether any torture or inducement was done to the accused and should insist for medical examination and look into the medical reports. The bench refused to accept prosecution's argument that medical evidence of torture was available only for some and not all accused and same will not detract from strong suspicion that all confessions were obtained under torture. 'If so many accused have been tortured, the threat of torture will loom large for all the accused and be sufficient to vitiate their confession under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act,' the HC said. Justice Anil S Kilor, who authored 671-page judgment for the bench which also consisted of Justice Shyam C Chandak observed that one of the many grounds based on which confessional statements were rendered 'inadmissible' was that Part-I and II of some of the statements were 'identical.' The HC also said that variations in mentioning of offences in correspondences made by the concerned Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) before or after recording a confession was also questionable. The court further emphasised on 'absence of certificates mandated under the MCOC Rules to establish voluntariness of confessions.' Moreover, it said that 'there was no relevant material available with the authority to reach a subjective satisfaction about the compliance of prerequisites for grant of prior approval' of designated authority, which was mandatory under MCOCA before recording the statements and the same suffered from 'non-application of mind.' The HC also noted that S K Jaiswal, who was then Deputy Inspector General (DIG), who granted prior approval, 'did not enter into the witness box to prove the contents of the letter of prior approval, and mere identification of Jaiswal's signature did not prove the approval and therefore, confession statements were 'inadmissible.'
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Delhi HC allows new office-bearers to take charge at RFI
Pune: Balaji Maradappa, a former rower and coach, has taken over as president of the Rowing Federation of India after the Delhi High Court allowed the results of the national body's elections held last year to be declared and the new set of office-bearers to take charge. Maradappa, who was treasurer in the previous administration, took over from Rajlaxmi Singh Deo, who served as president for three terms. He tallied 36 votes against 14 by rival candidate Harpal Singh. Subhashish Mukherjee won the contest for the secretary's post with a 35-15 win against Rajpal Singh; Chiranjit Phukan beat Rajiv Sharma 37-11 for the treasurer's position. You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune "We are fully compliant with the Sports Code now. I have already had a meeting with the CEO and officials in SAI and the sports ministry. They have asked us to present a programme for ACTC (Annual Calendar for Training and Competition), because for more than a year things have not moved," said Maradappa, who is from the Tamil Nadu state association. "They have assured all the required support. 'Work towards winning medals for the country at the Asian Games and Olympics', is the message from them all." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Heads Turn as Walgreens Shoppers Discover 87¢ ED Pills fridayplans Learn More Undo With the stringent rules of age and tenure limit under the sports code being extended to the state associations, some stalwart administrators have been asked to go. "Ramalinga Reddy of the Karnataka rowing association was barred because he was 70 years and three months. He is the state transport minister, he had helped build a beautiful (rowing) facility," Maradappa said. The Delhi Rowing Association had filed a petition in the Delhi HC early last year, seeking a stay on the elections citing RFI's non-compliance with the National Sports Code of 2011 as well as the ruling of a Division bench of the Delhi HC in the Rahul Mehra vs the Union of India case in August 2022. In response, the RFI brought to the court's attention that the petitioner itself was in violation of the Sports Code, prompting the court to allow the elections to go ahead on February 25, 2024, but with the ballot boxes to remain sealed. The court also asked the then set of office-bearers to continue to be in-charge till further orders and make the RFI code-compliant. In their latest order dated July 2nd, Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Chief Justice, and Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the grievances of the DRA were relevant but keeping the results of the elections in abeyance indefinitely was "not conducive either to the institutions or the democratic values". "It is in the interest of administration of any institution, that too in a democratic setup like ours, to ensure that a duly elected body is in place to manage and administer the affairs of the institution," the judges wrote. "... keeping in view that the petitioner itself was, concededly, not eligible to participate in the elections ... coupled with the fact that more than one and half year has already passed since the elections were held, it does not appeal to reason as to why the result of the elections should not be declared and why the elected body should not be handed charge." The judges added that "the results of such election would be subject to the outcome of the present writ petition" as well as the Supreme Court's final verdict in the case involving the All India Football Federation. Shahrukh Ejaz, advocate in the Delhi HC for RFI, said the federation was confident about the final verdict as it had completed the compliance process. "We have also shared the new charter with the state associations and all of them except three associations have complied and provided an affidavit to that effect," he said. The three non-compliant units are Goa, Delhi and Manipur, Ejaz said.
New Indian Express
5 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Delhi HC slams school rebuilding delay
NEW DELHI: How can a school run without classrooms and only with facilities like a boundary wall, toilet block, and drinking water space alone, the Delhi HC asked, expressing dismay at the authorities for their inaction in rebuilding an MCD-run primary school in Khirki Village. The court's remark came after it was informed that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had granted permission for repair and renovation of existing facilities like a porta cabin, toilet block, boundary wall, and water space—but not for the construction of classrooms. 'It is beyond comprehension as to how a school can run without classrooms and only with the facilities of boundary wall, toilet block and drinking water space alone,' said a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in a July 2 order, adding that the school 'will require classrooms as well.' The school, which shares a wall with the Tomb of Yusuf Qattal, was constructed in 1949 to educate local children. It was demolished in 2012, and 350 students were shifted to another MCD school. ASI had objected to reconstruction without a no-objection certificate, citing the protected status of the tomb. A petition filed by the Khirki Village Residents Welfare Association was earlier disposed of last year after the court directed ASI to decide on MCD's application for reconstruction 'in accordance with law… preferably within six weeks.' But no progress has been made, the court noted.
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Pre-Independence birth qualifies as person of Indian origin: Delhi HC
The Delhi high vourt has held that an individual can be recognised as a 'person of Indian origin (POI)' for citizenship by registration, if one of the parents is born in India before Independence i.e 15 August, 1947. Pre-Independence birth qualifies as person of Indian origin: Delhi HC The issue for consideration regarding POI came up before a bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela while dealing with a case of a 17-year old girl, born in India to an OCI card holder couple having US citizenship, seeking to be declared as POI for acquiring citizenship by registration. In the present case, the girl– Rachita Francis Xavier, born in 2006 in Andhra Pradesh, to an Indian couple who had obtained US citizenship in 2001 and 2005. She had applied for a passport in 2019, but her request was denied on the ground that she could not be recognised as an Indian citizen since her parents were foreign citizens, effectively rendering her as 'stateless'. In May last year, justice Prathiba M Singh had directed the Centre to grant her citizenship concluding that she was a POI as per section 5 of the Citizenship Act, since her parents were born in India after Independence and had subsequently obtained US citizenship. Section 5 of the Citizenship Act lays down the provisions under which a person can acquire Indian citizenship by registration. Explanation 2, specifies that an individual will be considered as POI, if at least one parent is born in undivided India or such other territory which became part of India after independence. However, the Centre approached the division bench seeking to set aside justice Singh's reasoning for declaring Rachita as 'a person of Indian origin'. In its petition, the Centre had asserted that the definition of Indian origin only covered parents born in India before Independence. Agreeing with the Centre's submissions, the court in its July 14 order, released on Thursday said, 'Accordingly, Explanation 2, in our opinion, provides that any person shall be deemed to be a person of 'Indian Origin' if the person or either of his parents were born in undivided India as defined in the Act, 1935, as originally enacted. It would thus mean that to acquire the status of a person of 'Indian Origin', the person concerned or either of his parents would have been born in India before 15.08.1947 and not thereafter. Explanation 2 appended to Section 5(1)(g) of the Citizenship Act would not cover a person to be deemed to be of 'Indian Origin' if he or either of his parents was born in India on or after 15.08.1947 or in a territory which did not become part of India after 15.08.1947.' Ultimately, the court set aside Justice Singh's order, saying that the same was erroneous as it was based on misreading the law governing Indian citizenship by registration. 'As regards the observations made and findings recorded in paragraph 41 and 52 of the judgement of the learned Single judge to the effect that the respondent qualified as a person of Indian Origin are concerned, in our opinion, the said finding is based on misreading of the provisions embodied in explanation 2 of section 5(1)(g) of the Citizenship Act. The observations made by the learned Single judge is erroneous,' the court maintained.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
Explain med consent bar on same-sex people: Delhi HC
File photo NEW DELHI: Delhi HC Thursday sought Centre's explanation for excluding same-sex couples from the right to make medical decisions for each other during treatment. Justice Sachin Datta observed there appeared to be no reason why this right should 'not be available' to same-sex or unmarried couples under Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. It directed Centre and National Medical Commission to respond within four weeks. The 2002 regulations state that consent for medical procedures must be obtained from 'husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of a minor, or the patient himself.' HC was hearing a plea by Arshiya Takkar seeking legal recognition for queer couples to make medical decisions for partners during emergencies. The plea argued that lack of guidelines leaves queer partners powerless in critical situations and amounts to bias. Justice Datta also questioned how the rules applied to orphans or people living alone and asked Centre to clarify.
