Latest news with #Gavai
The Hindu
10 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Stay of acquittal is ‘rarest of rare', CJI remarks briefly
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) briefly remarked that staying a judgment of acquittal in an appeal is a 'rarest of rare' option. The Chief Justice's oral remark came when a lawyer mentioned before his Bench the Maharashtra Government's petition challenging a Bombay High Court judgment acquitting all 12 convicts in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts in 2006. The mentioning was made in connection with a hitch in the Supreme Court Registry over a translation in the case records. The counsel mentioned the issue moments before the Bench rose for the day. 'Stay of acquittal is rarest of rare,' Chief Justice Gavai observed orally. 'Perhaps we will be able to convince Your Lordships that it is rarest of rare,' the counsel replied. The CJI had agreed to list the appeal on July 24 when the Solicitor General, appearing for Maharashtra, had made an oral mentioning on July 22 for an early listing. The Bombay High Court had concluded that the prosecution 'utterly failed' to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It had set aside the 2025 judgment of the special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court, which had awarded death penalty to five, and life imprisonment to seven others. On July 11, 2006 a series of seven bomb blasts occurred in the first class compartments of seven suburban local trains of Mumbai between 6.23 p.m. and 6.29 p.m. The coordinated explosions led to the tragic loss of 187 lives and left approximately 824 people injured.
The Hindu
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
CJI agrees to constitute Bench to hear plea on behalf of Justice Varma
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) said he will constitute a Bench for hearing a petition filed on behalf of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to the President and Prime Minister, in the month of May, to remove the judge from office. The Chief Justice said he, however, would not be part of the Bench. 'I will have to constitute a Bench on this. I think it will not be proper for me to take up the matter because I was part of the consultations then,' Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who made an oral mentioning for an early hearing of the petition. 'That is for you to decide,' Mr. Sibal replied. 'We will just take a call and constitute a Bench,' Chief Justice Gavai said. Mr. Sibal said the petition has raised several constitutional issues with respect to the recommendation made by Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) for the removal of Justice Varma. The Chief Justice's willingness to judicially examine the question of removal of Justice Varma comes a couple of days after a removal motion was initiated when Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members submitted notices to the presiding officers of their respective Houses. The petition in the Supreme Court argued that the in-house inquiry process was a 'parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism' designed for the judiciary to usurp the Parliament's exclusive authority. An in-house inquiry committee of three judges had confirmed that unaccounted cash was found in the gutted storeroom at the official residential premises of Justice Varma after a blaze on March 14-15. Chief Justice Khanna had forwarded the report to the Prime Minister and President in May after Justice Varma refused to resign. The challenge in the apex court contended that the in-house inquiry took away the exclusive powers of the Parliament under Article 124 and 218 of the Constitution to remove judges through an address supported by a special majority after an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 'This Act provides a comprehensive, legislatively sanctioned process with stringent safeguards, including formal charges, cross-examination, and proof beyond reasonable doubt for 'proved misbehaviour'. On the other hand, the in-house procedure, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority,' the petition said. The petition, filed under an anonymous acronym 'XXX', described the petitioner as an Allahabad High Court judge. The in-house procedure, devised by the Supreme Court, had no legal sanction. It was a threat to the separation of powers, the petition argued. Justice Varma urged the apex court to declare the in-house procedure unconstitutional. The petition argued the in-house inquiry procedure against sitting judges was also a threat to judicial independence, an essential part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. 'It overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction, concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards, and thus erodes judicial independence and public confidence,' it submitted. It also made a direct attack on Chief Justice Khanna, saying the latter did not give Justice Varma a personal hearing after the committee report came out nor had afforded him a chance to properly review the document. The petition pointed out that the inquiry reached its conclusions merely on the basis of presumptions. There was not even a formal complaint about the 'discovery' of cash. Neither was the alleged cash seized or panchnama prepared. The whole series of events were based on certain photos and videos privately taken by some officials. It said the inquiry committee was unfair to the High Court and did not find the answers it was constituted for, including when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse.
India Today
a day ago
- Business
- India Today
Why don't you earn? Supreme Court on Rs 12 crore, Mumbai flat, BMW alimony demand
The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up a woman who demanded Rs 12 crore and a BMW car from her husband in alimony and observed that well-educated women should earn for themselves rather than depending on husband's money for their maintenance. Chief Justice of India BR Gavai was hearing an alimony case where a woman demanded a house in Mumbai and Rs 12 crore as maintenance in alimony after getting separated from her husband within 18 months of Justice of India BR Gavai, while hearing the alimony battle, said, 'Aap itni padi likhi hai. Aapko khudko mangna nahi chahiye aur khudko kama ke khana chahiye. (You are so educated. You should earn for yourself and shouldn't ask for it)."During the hearing, CJI Gavai questioned the scale of her demand, stating, 'Your marriage lasted only 18 months, and now you want a BMW too? One crore every month?' Highlighting the woman's qualifications, an MBA and experience as an IT expert, the Chief Justice remarked that she should not depend on alimony. 'If you are educated, you should not beg for yourself. You should earn and eat for yourself,' he woman countered that her husband is very wealthy and has even sought an annulment of the marriage by alleging she suffers from schizophrenia. 'Do I look like a schizophrenic?' she asked the advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the husband, argued that alimony cannot be claimed in such an extravagant manner. She pointed out that the woman was already living in a Mumbai flat with two parking spots and could generate income from it. She said, "She has to work also. Everything cannot be demanded like this."'The BMW she is dreaming of is 10 years old and has been discontinued,' Divan Gavai noted the husband's past income, Rs 2.5 crore salary and Rs 1 crore in bonuses during his employment, and directed both parties to submit complete financial documents. The bench also emphasised that the woman could not claim rights over property of her husband's woman alleged that the husband's actions led to her job loss and that he had filed a false FIR against her. To this, CJI Gavai assured, 'You file the FIR, we will cancel that too. We will direct that no party will initiate any criminal proceedings against each other.'As the hearing concluded, the court offered the woman two options — either accept a burden-free flat or Rs 4 crore and seek employment in IT hubs like Pune, Hyderabad, or Bengaluru. 'There is demand in IT centers,' said the CJI.- Ends
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Probe agencies can't summon lawyers: AG; CJI says 'ED officers crossing all limits'
Supreme Court (File photo) NEW DELHI: Admitting that ED erred in summoning senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for rendering legal opinions to clients in a laundering case, attorney general R Venkataramani Monday told Supreme Court that all probe agencies have been asked not to commit this mistake in future. 'We'll frame guidelines in this regard,' AG told a bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran while it was hearing a suo motu case regarding the summons, which were later withdrawn. 'ED officers are crossing all limits. They must know that under law, communication between a lawyer and his client is a privileged communication,' Gavai said. If a lawyer is involved in crime, law will take its own course: CJI However, if a lawyer is involved in a crime, law will take its own course,' CJI Gavai said. SC would take up petitions filed by various bar associations on July 29 to attempt to lay down comprehensive guidelines in this regard, he added. On the joint pleas of SCBA president Vikas Singh, SC Advocates-on-Record president Vipin Nair, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Vijay Hansaria, the CJI-led bench said it would frame guidelines for agencies and bar them from summoning advocates for legal opinion or advice rendered to clients facing prosecution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo While agreeing with AG, solicitor general Tushar Mehta pointed out another malady afflicting some in the legal professions. "It is equally wrong on the part of advocates, who appear for or advise a client, to create a planned narrative in favour of their client and against the probe agency through social media before and after filing of a petition in a court. Lawyers must stick to their duty of presenting the case before the court,' he said. Mehta said, "The communication between a lawyer and his client is no doubt privileged and which must be immune from investigation, But would a lawyer's action in creating a narrative for his client outside the court also enjoy the status of a privileged communication? Would it not amount to an attempt to influence the public and judiciary about a case?' CJI Gavai asked, 'Have you ever found a judgment or order of a court getting swayed or influenced by such narratives spun by lawyers outside the court? We go by facts and submissions in the courtroom and do not even watch or read what the lawyers speak outside the courtroom about the case.' Mehta said the issuance of summons to Datar was brought to the notice of the 'highest executive' and within six hours a circular was issued by the ED barring its officers from issuing summons to any advocate. Singh, Nair and Hansaria said issuance of summons to advocates by probe agencies would have a chilling effect on the independence of the legal profession.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
'ED crossing all limits': Supreme Court over summons issued to lawyers
The Supreme Court on Monday said that it was "shocked" to learn about summons being issued to senior lawyers by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for legal opinion rendered by them to their clients. A division bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai said that guidelines need to be framed in this regard (probe agencies summoning lawyers for their legal advice). "Even if it is wrong, it is a privileged communication (between a lawyer and a client). How can ED summon lawyers?", CJI Gavai verbally remarked. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Leadership Others Finance healthcare Management others Data Science Digital Marketing Healthcare Design Thinking Public Policy Cybersecurity Operations Management CXO Data Analytics MCA Data Science PGDM Project Management Technology Artificial Intelligence Product Management MBA Skills you'll gain: Duration: 12 Weeks IIM Kozhikode CERT-IIMK EPIS Async India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Critical Thinking & Decision-Making Skills Power of Emerging Technologies Innovation and Drive Organizational Change Fostering a Culture of Innovation Duration: 9 Months MIT xPRO MIT Technology Leadership and Innovation Starts on May 14, 2024 Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 10 Months IIM Kozhikode CERT-IIMK-Women Leadership Programme INDIA Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 12 Months IIM Kozhikode Senior Management Programme Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 22 Weeks Indian School of Business SEPO - ISB Venture Capital & Private Equity India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Financial Accounting & Analysis Financial Instruments & Markets Corporate Finance & Valuation Investment Management & Banking Duration: 12 Months IIM Kozhikode IIMK Professional Certificate in Financial Analysis and Financial Management Starts on Mar 30, 2024 Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 11 Months IIM Lucknow CERT-IIML SLP India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 12 Months IIM Kozhikode SEPO - IIMK CEO Programme India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Opportunities & Outlining Plans to use AI & ML Applying Data-Driven Business Innovation Best Practices Changing Culture to Integrate AI-Enabled Technologies Ethics, Privacy and Regulations in AI & ML Duration: 20 Weeks Indian School of Business ISB Leadership in AI Starts on May 14, 2024 Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 12 Months IIM Kozhikode Advanced Strategic Management Programme Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Strategic Thinking & Planning Competitive Advantage & Market Positioning Strategic Leadership & Decision-Making Change Management & Organizational Transformation Duration: 1 Year IIM Kozhikode IIMK Advanced Strategic Management Programme Starts on Mar 30, 2024 Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 18 Weeks 109820388 Strategic Marketing for Leaders: Leveraging AI for Growth Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 10 Months IIM Indore Executive Programme in Business Management Starts on undefined Get Details Disapproving of the conduct of ED, the CJI verbally told Attorney General R Venkataramani that ED officers "are crossing all limits". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo The CJI told the AG that earlier in the day, the bench had disapproved of ED's conduct in pursuing political matters. The CJI was referring to his verbal remarks made by him in pleas against West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and Karnataka CM Siddharamaiah's wife Parvathi. The ED had filed an appeal in the top court against the Karnataka High Court decision to quash the summons issued to Parvathi, who is a co-accused in the MUDA scam. Refusing to entertain the appeal, the CJI had verbally told ED's counsel "please do not force us to say something. Otherwise we have to say something very harsh about the Enforcement Directorate. Let political battles be fought among the electorate. Why are you being used for it?". Fairly conceding that ED could not have summoned the lawyers for their legal advice, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that there is "a concerted effort to create a narrative against the institution (ED)". Mehta added that general observations of the bench are "misconstrued considering individual cases". Live Events Speaking for the bench, CJI Gavai verbally observed "we are seeing in multiple cases that even after reasoned orders of high courts, ED is filing appeals just for the sake of it!" The bench said that guidelines need to be framed, The development took place during the resumed hearing of a suo motu case initiated by the top court on summons issued by ED to two senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal in the course of the ED's investigation into the grant of over 22.7 million Employee Stock Option Plans, valued at more than ₹250 crore, by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja.
