Latest news with #JharkhandHighCourt
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- General
- Business Standard
Rahul Gandhi moves Jharkhand HC over non-bailable warrant in Amit Shah case
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has approached the Jharkhand High Court to challenge a non-bailable warrant issued against him by the MP-MLA Special Court in Chaibasa, Bar and Bench reported. The warrant pertains to his remarks against Union Home Minister Amit Shah. As reported by The Hindu, this is the second such warrant issued by the Chaibasa court, which has directed Gandhi to appear before it on June 26. The court had earlier issued a non-bailable warrant on February 27 after Gandhi failed to appear and participate in the trial proceedings. Following that, Gandhi had moved the Jharkhand High Court, which stayed the execution of the first warrant. Rahul Gandhi's controversial 2018 remarks Rahul Gandhi's comments targeting the BJP during a speech at the AICC Plenary Session in New Delhi on March 18, 2018, have led to a legal faceoff. Gandhi is accused of referring to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders as 'murderers' and 'liars' during his address. Gandhi had said, 'The people of this country will never accept a lying Bharatiya Janata Party leadership drunk with power because they know what the BJP is designed for.' He said, 'They will accept a man accused of murder as the President of BJP, but the people will never accept the same in the Congress Party.' Legal trouble for Rahul Gandhi Following initial hearings and witness statements, the case was transferred to the Special MP-MLA Court in Ranchi in February 2020 on the orders of the Jharkhand High Court. Subsequently, the High Court directed the matter back to the MP-MLA Court in Chaibasa. The court took cognizance of the matter in February 2022 and issued summons to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, which his office received. In May 2022, Gandhi was granted interim protection from arrest in the case. In February 2025, the Jharkhand High Court rejected Gandhi's plea to quash the criminal defamation case. The court noted that Rahul Gandhi had stated, 'BJP leaders are liars who are drunk with power,' and that 'BJP workers will accept a person accused of murder as their President.' The court held that these statements are prima facie defamatory under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
New Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
2018 defamation case: Rahul Gandhi moves Jharkhand HC against non-bailable arrest warrant
RANCHI: Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, has approached the Jharkhand High Court, challenging the non-bailable warrant issued against him by a Special MP-MLA Court in Chaibasa. Gandhi, in his petition, has requested the court to quash the warrant issued against him. On May 22, 2025, a Chaibasa court issued the non-bailable warrant, directing him to appear in person on June 26. Earlier, his counsel had filed an application under Section 205 of the CrPC seeking exemption from personal appearance, but the court rejected the plea and insisted on his presence. After the rejection, Gandhi has now moved the High Court against the lower court's order. According to the petition, he has already filed a plea in the Jharkhand High Court seeking exemption from appearance, which is still pending. In such a situation, the issuance of a non-bailable warrant by the Chaibasa court is "unfair", the petition claims. Rahul Gandhi had reportedly made sharp remarks against the BJP, allegedly calling its leaders 'murderers' and 'liars' during a speech on March 18, 2018, at the AICC Plenary Session in New Delhi. 'The people of this country will never accept a lying Bhartiya Janata Party leadership drunk with power because they know what the BJP is designed for.' Further, he said, 'They will accept a man accused of murder as the President of BJP, but the people will never accept the same in the Congress Party,' he was said to have remarked. Hurt by these remarks, BJP worker Pratap Kumar filed a complaint at the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Chaibasa on July 9, 2018. The court took cognizance of the matter in February 2022 and issued summons to Gandhi, which were received by his office. After initial hearings and testimonies, the case was transferred to the Special MP-MLA Court in Ranchi in February 2020 on the orders of the Jharkhand High Court. It was later sent back to the MP-MLA Court in Chaibasa as per another High Court order.
Indian Express
5 days ago
- Indian Express
Year after acid attack, conflicting accounts and a Jharkhand family still waiting for justice, reconstructive surgery
In April 2024, Hasina Bibi, 37, a single mother of three, was sleeping on the roof of their family-run eatery in the Rajmahal subdivision of Jharkhand's Sahebganj district when, at around midnight, a man allegedly climbed up from a neighbouring building and threw acid on her. Her 13-year-old daughter, elderly mother, and brother were also attacked. Hasina and her daughter suffered over 50% burns, leaving them permanently disabled. Over a year later, living in a rented house, Hasina says they still receive threats from the accused. Initially treated at Dhanbad Government Hospital and Ranchi's RIMS for six months, the family was moved to Rajmahal Hospital in October 2024 for contracture treatment and skin grafts. In April 2025, they were referred back to RIMS, but surgery is still pending. Doctors now recommend they be moved to AIIMS Delhi for better treatment. They are yet to be moved. The daughter, once the winner of a school dance competition, lost an eye and hearing in one ear. Her dreams of becoming a makeup artist are on hold. 'No one from school calls me anymore,' she says. A writ petition filed in March this year at the Jharkhand High Court by a team of advocates alleged that Hasina's neighbours had set fire to her home in February 2024, following which they had to move to the roof of their eatery. It also said that after the acid attack accused, identified as Manish Kumar, attacked them on the roof, the victims were moved to the dengue ward at the Rajmahal sub-divisional hospital instead of the burns ward. They now live in rented accommodations. Hasina claims that when Manish attacked them with acid, two others — her neighbours — were standing outside and that it was them who had 'orchestrated the attack'. The police, however, deny this. The petition at the High Court seeks increased compensation, rehabilitation and suitable shelter. Meanwhile, a case has been ongoing at a lower court since July 8, last year — based on an FIR filed by Hasina's brother Alam, who was also a victim of the acid attack, in April 2024 under IPC sections 341, 450, 326(a), 504, and 34. Now, Alam has been missing for three months, while Hasina's elder daughter is trying to run the eatery. The first hearing in the lower court's case was held on August 17 last year, with the next hearing scheduled for June 19, 2025. The FIR names the two neighbours also as accused. There are conflicting accounts of why the attack happened. Hasina says the motive was a land dispute: 'They wanted my land. When I refused, they tried to kill me.' She says that her son had eloped with a woman from a different community in 2022, and that the neighbours tried to use the outrage around this to pressure her into leaving her land. She alleges that they roped in Manish to mount further pressure on her. Police said Manish, 28, who is from Farrukhabad in Uttar Pradesh and worked at a factory, told them he was romantically involved with Hasina, became jealous, and attacked her after suspecting infidelity. He allegedly admitted to stealing acid from the factory where he worked. He also sustained burns on his face and hands during the attack and was later arrested. Hasina denies any relationship and alleges that the factory Manish worked in was owned by her neighbour's brother. She says he harassed her and once took her and her daughters to Panipat under false pretences. She also questioned how acid was accessible at the factory. She also alleged that despite the neighbours being named in the FIR, police are only pursuing Manish. Vimlesh Tripathi, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and investigating officer, acknowledged the complaint but said their investigations had shown no connection between the neighbours and Manish. Tripathi says Hasina had an affair with Manish and that he acted out of jealousy — a claim Hasina strongly denies. She says she warned the neighbours about Manish's behaviour just a day before the attack. When brought back to RIMS on April 4, Hasina and her daughter were admitted to general surgery. 'We just eat, sleep, and wait,' Hasina said. 'Why is no one helping us? This is a question for the entire system.' RIMS Superintendent Dr Hitendra Birua said Hasina and her daughter had been referred to AIIMS, Delhi, and that the Jharkhand government would cover all treatment costs. Compensation of Rs 1 lakh was initially given to each family member, and Hasina and her daughter later received Rs 3 lakh more each. Officer Tripathi said this aligns with state government norms of Rs 2-7 lakh per victim based on severity. However, the petition filed by lawyers in the High Court says this is insufficient and demands at least Rs 25 lakh per victim. 'Even going by the IO's version, they haven't received the full amount. Even the amount set by NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) isn't adequate,' one of the lawyers said. photo: Inside the family's old house, which was destroyed in a fire. Express Shubham Tigga hails from Chhattisgarh and studied journalism at the Asian College of Journalism. He previously reported in Chhattisgarh on Indigenous issues and is deeply interested in covering socio-political, human rights, and environmental issues in mainland and NE India. Presently based in Pune, he reports on civil aviation, other transport sectors, urban mobility, the gig economy, commercial matters, and workers' unions. You can reach out to him on LinkedIn ... Read More
Indian Express
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Story of a sacred Jharkhand hill at the centre of old friction between Jains & Santals
The Jharkhand High Court on May 3 directed the state government to enforce a pre-existing ban on the consumption and sale of meat, alcohol, and other intoxicants on a hill considered to be sacred by both the Santal Adivasi and Jain communities. Referred to as Marang Buru by Santals and Parasnath by Jains, the hill in Jharkhand's Giridih district has been the site of a century-old inter-community conflict. Here's the story. A sacred hill Jains believe that 20 of the 24 Jain tirthankaras (divine teachers) attained nirvana (liberation) on Parasnath Hill. The name 'Parasnath' is derived from Parshvanatha, the 23rd tirthankara. Today, there are more than 40 Jain temples and dhams on the hill. 'The Jains, being followers of one of the oldest religions, have held this hill sacred since the time of the tirthankaras [in the BCEs],' Amit Jain, a community leader in Parasnath, told The Indian Express. '[Jains and Adivasis] have co-existed at Parasnath Hill from the very beginning. When the tirthankaras came here to attain nirvana here, it was the Adivasis who carried them to the top of the hill. That tradition continues today,' he said. Marang Buru (literally 'the Great Mountain') is the supreme animist deity in the Santal tradition. The Jug Jaher Than (sacred grove) on the hill is the most sacred dhorom garh (religious site) of the Santals, akin to what Mecca means for Muslims. Also significant is the Dishom Manjhi Than on the hill, the symbolic seat of the dishom manjhi (the traditional Santal leader) where customary rituals are performed. Its religious significance aside, Marang Buru is the supreme seat of justice for Santals. The Lo Bir Baisi, a tribal council that resolves disputes which cannot be handled at the village level, convenes at Boda Darha in Sohraiya village, on the eastern part of the sacred mountain. It was with a resolution of this council that the historic Santal Hul was launched in 1855. Led by Sidhu and Kanhu Murmu, the rebellion targeted the oppressive dikus, literally 'outsiders', including zamindars, mahajans, and British officials. An old conflict Jains believe that an ancient king donated the Parasnath Hill to the community. But revenue department official P C Roy Choudhury in the 1957 Hazaribagh District Gazetteer wrote that 'the oldest of the [Jain] temples appears to date only from AD 1765.' It was in 1911 that the conflict between Adivasis and Jains over Marang Buru/Parasnath officially entered state records. 'Parasnath is the Marang Buru or hill deity of the Santals… Each year they assemble during the full moon of Baisakh… and celebrate a religious hunt for three days; after which a great tribal session is held… The entry of this custom in the record-of-rights which was prepared in 1911… was followed by the institution of a suit by the Swetamber Jains who have declared that no such custom exists,' Roy Choudhury wrote. This account describes the Sendra festival which has been a frequent flash point in the Santal-Jain conflict over the hill. During the three-day long Sendra, all male members of the Santal community head into the forest to hunt. 'It's a rebirth for Santal men. Either die or hunt to survive,' Arjun Marandi, a community elder, told The Indian Express. For Jains, who follow a rigorous spiritually-motivated vegetarian diet, Sendra has long caused consternation. But initial attempts to ban hunting on the hill were unsuccessful. The aforementioned suit was dismissed by the district court, and upon appeal, rejected by the Patna High Court in 1917. '[The plaintiffs'] grievance, if any, is hyper sentimental,' the court observed. The Privy Council, the highest court of appeal in British India, later held that Santals have a customary right to hunt on Parasnath Hill, Roy Choudhury wrote in the 1957 Gazetteer. After Independence Continuing pressure from dikus and concerns regarding India's depleting forests gradually eroded Adivasi rights over the hill post-Independence. In 1972, the year in which the Indira Gandhi government passed the Wildlife Protection Act, Adivasi villages around Marang Buru lost their status under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. Areas included in the Fifth Schedule give Scheduled Tribes certain special rights with regards to administration and control of resources. The forested area on and around the hill was designated as a wildlife sanctuary in 1978, which further reduced Adivasi rights over it. As a result, rituals at the Jug Jaher Than in Marang Buru were halted from the 1970s to 2000, the year Jharkhand attained statehood. Ajay Tudu, a prominent Santali activist who led the movement for the resumption of Adivasi rituals at Marang Buru, was shot dead by unknown assailants in 2008. But even in a state created with the ostensible purpose of politically empowering Adivasis, there have been continuing impediments on Santal customary practices in Parasnath. Most recently, a 2023 memorandum by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change ordered that no alcohol or meat be served within a 25 km radius of the hill — an area encompassing 99, mostly Adivasi, villages — out of respect for the sentiments of the Jain community. The memo also banned serving eggs or meat in Anganwadi centres and primary schools in the area, Naman Priyesh Lakra, the Deputy Commissioner of Giridih district, told The Indian Express. The recent HC order pertained to the enforcement of this MoEFCC directive. DC Lakra said that following the HC order the number of home guards in the area has been increased to prevent illegal activities by villagers or outsiders. Nonetheless, earlier this week, Santals celebrated the Sendra festival in the jungles of Marang Buru. The Marang Buru Sanvta Susaar Baisi (MBSSB), a local Santal association led by Sikandar Hembrom, has also filed a counter-petition asserting Santals' traditional rights over the hill.
Time of India
15-05-2025
- Automotive
- Time of India
No denial of third-party accident claim on grounds of wrong insurance policy details: You're still entitled to all benefits, rules Jharkhand HC
Most of us do not remember our car insurance policy details off the back of our hand. Many times, the death of the sole financial decision maker, or the breadwinner of a family, leaves behind members who are unaware of policy details. This might lead people to believe that your insurer can reject your claim or that you are ineligible to make one altogether. But according to a recent verdict by the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Lilmuni Madaiyan, your insurer cannot validly reject your claim on merely the grounds that you did not provide correct information related to your motor insurance policy . Read on to know what you can do to get your claim successfully approved in the event of an accident, in case you are unable to provide your policy details correctly to your insurer. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Linda Kozlowski, 67, Shows Off Her Perfect Figure In A New Photo Today's NYC Undo The case, as it happened In June 2010, Lakhichand Maraiya, a skilled carpenter earning Rs 9,000/month, was involved in a road accident, which resulted in his immediate death. His wife and children filed a complaint with the MACT (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal). In 2016, the tribunal awarded them a compensation of around Rs 20 lakh (Rs 20,49,000) and directed the insurer, i.e., Reliance General Insurance, to pay the same. However, the general insurer contested this in the court, saying that the claimants, i.e., the third party (owner of the offending vehicle) who caused the accident, had provided them with the wrong policy number, thereby absolving them of any liability to pay claims associated with the accident. Live Events Reliance General further contended that this compensation should be recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle. But, according to the high court, 'Merely providing a wrong policy number by the claimants, the liability of the insurance company cannot be ruled out because the claimants are not supposed to know the exact policy number.' In 2024, IRDAI also issued a statement underlining that insurers cannot deny claims on the grounds of documents not being submitted that were required to be obtained at the time of policy issuance. At the stage of claims, companies can only ask for documents directly related to the claim itself, such as a claim form, repair bill, or FIR, based on the type of policy. The court further highlighted that the insurance company has not produced any evidence to establish that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. 'The fact remains that the accident took place and the death has occurred, and in view of that, the charge sheet has been submitted. The oral evidence of the witnesses is consistent on the point of the accident and the earning of the deceased,' it added, thereby upholding the award. Can insurer deny your claim on the grounds of incorrect or insufficient policy details provided by the policyholder? Sarita Joshi, Product Head of Health and Life Insurance at Probus, says, 'As long as other verifiable information is present, an insurance company usually cannot reject a claim for the absence of a policy number or copy. It is the responsibility of insurers to use alternative information to help identify valid policies.' 'Insurers are required to use reasonable attempts to track down the policy based on the name, registration, or other identifiers of the vehicle in cases involving motor vehicle accidents in which the insured has passed away', she adds. Chetan Vasudeva, Senior Vice President, Business Development at Elephant. in concurs. According to him, insurance companies cannot deny servicing a claim only based on an incorrect policy number or failure to provide a copy of the policy by the policyholder. 'While it is always advised to share the correct details, policy documents, and other related documents to speed up the process, if the policyholder fails to provide the supportive documents or policy number, insurers are required to identify the policy using other available information, such as contact number, policyholder name, email ID, etc., provided by the policyholder at the time of purchasing the policy,' he explains. As such, it is a prudent practice to make nominations in both your life and health insurance policies so that your near and dear ones can avail of the benefits of your insurance policy in case of an unfortunate incident without any hassles.
