Latest news with #JusticeKant
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Probe 171 alleged fake encounters in 2021: SC to Assam rights panel
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: The SC on Wednesday asked the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to inquire into 171 alleged incidents of fake encounters carried out by state police in 2021 but said barring a few incidents the PIL petitioner's claim about fake encounters appeared to be speculative. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh disposed of a petition by an advocate Arif M Y Jwadder and said, "We direct the AHRC to issue a public notice inviting all individuals who claim to be aggrieved (victims and their family members) by the alleged police encounters to come forward and furnish relevant evidence." Allowing AHRC to select team of police officials unconnected to the encounters for further inquiry into some cases if the need be, the bench said "fair and impartial inquiry" is a right of citizens aggrieved by police action and expected AHRC to adopt robust measures akin to witness protection protocols to safeguard the privacy, safety and security of those participating in the inquiry process. The state, in its counter-affidavit had said that out of a total of 171 cases, chargesheets have been filed in 125 cases, forwarding reports submitted in 23 cases, and remaining 23 cases are under investigation. Writing the judgment and examining the allegations of the petitioner, Justice Kant said that he has failed to independently place on record any cogent or verifiable material to substantiate the allegations. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Justice Kant said, "After minutely scanning such data, prima facie it seems that barring a few cases, it is difficult to infer that there has been a procedural breakdown, or the guidelines (relating to encounter inquiry) were flagrantly violated. " Referring to the status report relating to each FIR furnished by Assam, the bench said, "These documents prima facie belies the (petitioner's) claim of inaction and do establish that, at least at the foundational level, the criminal process was duly initiated. "
The Hindu
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court directs Centre, IAF not to release officer part of Operation Sindoor from service
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (May 22, 2025) directed the Centre and the Indian Air Force not to release from service a woman officer, who was part of Operation Balakot and Operation Sindoor but was denied permanent commission. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh sought responses from the Centre and the IAF on the plea of Wing Commander Nikita Pandey who claimed discrimination for being denied permanent commission. The Bench called IAF a professional force and said the uncertainty on service was not good for such officers. "Our Air Force is one of the best organisations in the world. Officers are very commendable. Quality of coordination they have exhibited, I think it's unparalleled. Therefore, we always salute them. They are a big asset for the nation. They are the nation, in a way. Because of them, we are able to sleep at night," Justice Kant said. The Bench noted a "tough life" for Short Service Commission (SSC) officers began following their recruitment, which called for some incentive after 10 or 15 years to grant them permanent commission. "That sense of uncertainty may not be good for the armed forces. It's a layman's suggestion, because we are not experts. On minimum benchmarks, there can't be a compromise," Justice Kant said. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the officer, said her client was an expert fighter controller, who participated as an expert in the Integrated Air Command and Control Systems (IACCS), which were deployed in Operation Sindoor and Operation Balakot. The senior counsel submitted that the officer had served more than 13.5 years in service but was impacted by a 2019 policy that denied her permanent commission and forced her to conclude her service after a month. 'The officer ranked second in the merit list of expert air fighter controllers in the country,' Ms. Guruswamy added. The Bench asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre and the IAF, the reason for not granting the officer permanent commission. Ms. Bhati revealed she belonged to an armed forces background herself, therefore, being receptive of the predicament of such officers but argued that the petitioner was found unfit by the selection board. She said the officer directly moved the Supreme Court without filing any representation and informed the Bench that a second selection board would be considering her case. The Bench ordered Ms. Pandey not to be released from service till further orders and posted the hearing on August 6. The Supreme Court, however, said no equity would be created in her favour and left open all the contentions in the case. Ms. Bhati had no objections in the officers continuing in service as most of the officers in the armed forces were brilliant officers but ultimate question related to the comparative merit and the need for keeping the forces young. She said a "steep pyramidal structure" was followed by IAF which requires that certain officers go out of the service after serving 14 years and new officers come in their place. Justice Kant told Ms. Bhati that armed forces should have the capacity to accommodate all SSC officers in the permanent commission, highlighting women officers performed exceedingly well. "Due to the lack of permanent commission for women officers after a long duration, Short Service Commission recruitment are taking place. That is the reason that inter se competition arises after 10, 12 and 15 years. You can have a policy of taking that many SCC officers, who can be accommodated in the Permanent Commission, if they are found suitable. If you have 100 SCC officers, you should have the capacity to take 100 of them to the permanent commission," the judge said. Ms. Bhati replied that normally out of 100 officers considered for the permanent commission, almost 90-95% officers were found fit but some lost out only on account of comparative merit. "There are a limited number of posts, it's a very steep pyramid structure," she said.
Time of India
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC directs IAF not to release officer part of Operation Sindoor from service
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre and the Indian Air Force not to release from service a woman officer, who was part of Operation Balakot and Operation Sindoor but was denied permanent commission. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh sought responses from the Centre and the IAF on the plea of Wing Commander Nikita Pandey who claimed discrimination for being denied permanent bench called IAF a professional force and said the uncertainty on service was not good for such officers."Our Air Force is one of the best organisations in the world. Officers are very commendable. Quality of coordination they have exhibited, I think it's unparalleled. Therefore, we always salute them. They are a big asset for the nation. They are the nation, in a way. Because of them, we are able to sleep at night," Justice Kant bench noted a "tough life" for Short Service Commission (SSC) officers began following their recruitment, which called for some incentive after 10 or 15 years to grant them permanent commission."That sense of uncertainty may not be good for the Armed Forces. It's a layman's suggestion, because we are not experts. On minimum benchmarks, there can't be a compromise," Justice Kant advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the officer, said her client was an expert fighter controller, who participated as an expert in the Integrated Air Command and Control Systems (IACCS), which were deployed in Operation Sindoor and Operation senior counsel submitted that the officer had served over 13.5 years in service but was impacted by a 2019 policy that denied her permanent commission and forced her to conclude her service after a officer ranked second in the merit list of expert air fighter controllers in the country, Guruswamy bench asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre and the IAF, the reason for not granting the officer permanent revealed she belonged to an armed forces background herself, therefore, being receptive of the predicament of such officers but argued that the petitioner was found unfit by the selection said the officer directly moved the apex court without filing any representation and informed the bench that a second selection board would be considering her bench ordered Pandey not to be released from service till further orders and posted the hearing on August top court, however, said no equity would be created in her favour and left open all the contentions in the had no objections in the officers continuing in service as most of the officers in the armed forces were brilliant officers but ultimate question related to the comparative merit and the need for keeping the forces said a "steep pyramidal structure" was followed by IAF which requires that certain officers go out of the service after serving 14 years and new officers come in their Kant told Bhati that armed forces should have the capacity to accommodate all SSC officers in the permanent commission, highlighting women officers performed exceedingly well."Due to the lack of permanent commission for women officers after a long duration, Short Service Commission recruitment are taking place. That is the reason that inter se competition arises after 10, 12 and 15 years. You can have a policy of taking that many SCC officers, who can be accommodated in the Permanent Commission, if they are found suitable. If you have 100 SCC officers, you should have the capacity to take 100 of them to the permanent commission," the judge replied that normally out of 100 officers considered for the permanent commission, almost 90-95 per cent officers were found fit but some lost out only on account of comparative merit."There are a limited number of posts, it's a very steep pyramid structure," she said.
United News of India
16-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC allows Abbas Ansari to stay 3 nights at Ghazipur home while visiting constituency
New Delhi, May 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday modified the interim bail conditions of Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari, permitting him to stay at his residence in Ghazipur for up to three nights whenever he travels to his constituency, Mau, while maintaining that the stay must not be used for public meetings. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh passed the order while hearing Ansari's plea seeking relaxation in the bail terms earlier imposed in a case registered under the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 'Having regard to the difficulties being experienced by the petitioner while visiting his constituency, clause 2, para 6 of order dated 7 March is modified to the limited extent that when the petitioner visits his constituency, he may stay in the night at his residence in Ghazipur,' the bench ordered. 'Such stay shall not exceed three nights (initially), and shall not be for the purpose of any public meeting at the residence.' Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Ansari, urged the court to consider the practical challenges in travelling from Lucknow where Ansari is currently required to reside to Mau, which is over 300 kilometers away. He submitted that since the grant of interim bail in March, Ansari had not left Lucknow. "Since your lordships have said I can only go to constituency, I can't go to my home... [if I go to constituency] how do I stay? Where do I stay? I will have to come back," Sibal said. Initially, Justice Kant remarked, 'It's better you don't go there for some time. Your family can come and meet you in Lucknow.' However, the bench eventually agreed to allow a limited stay at Ghazipur, subject to restrictions. When Sibal objected to the three-night cap, arguing that Ansari had complied fully with the earlier bail conditions, Justice Kant responded: 'Nobody spends this much time in constituency. Three nights we are permitting.' Earlier, ASG KM Nataraj, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, placed a status report in sealed cover, which the Court opened and read during the proceedings. Justice Kant noted, 'There is nothing confidential. Only issue appears to be that he is not attending in some criminal proceedings and trial is getting delayed,' adding that the delays could be linked to the restrictions imposed by the bail conditions. The Court directed that a copy of the status report be shared with Ansari's counsel and asked for a reply-affidavit addressing the concerns raised in the report. Background: An FIR was registered against Abbas Ansari and others on August 31, 2024, at PS Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot, under Section 2/3 of the UP Gangsters Act. It was alleged that Ansari was part of a gang formed for financial and other unlawful benefits, involving extortion and intimidation. Ansari's initial bail plea was rejected by the Supreme Court, directing him to approach the High Court first. After the Allahabad High Court dismissed his plea in December 2024, citing his alleged gang leadership and multiple pending cases, Ansari approached the apex court again. On March 7, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail, imposing stringent conditions including a bar on leaving Lucknow, with limited exception to visit his constituency Mau upon prior intimation to the trial court and local police. The Court also restrained him from making any public statements related to sub judice matters. The Court has now posted the matter for further hearing.
Time of India
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC adjourns hearing of pleas challenging law on Election Commissioners' appointment
. The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging validity of the law relating to the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners, which dropped Chief Justice of India from selection panel for Election Commissioners. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh indicated that it may hear the matter next week, subject to the cases listed before it. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), told the bench that the matter be heard today and tomorrow, and the hearing can be concluded. Justice Kant said there is a three-judge bench part heard matter tomorrow. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like AI guru Andrew Ng recommends: Read These 5 Books And Turn Your Life Around in 2025 Blinkist: Andrew Ng's Reading List Undo "We wish we can work 24 hours. After reading 50 files per night... how much energy left to hear this regular matter," said Justice Kant. Let's see what we can do in this case next week, said the bench, indicating that it may hear the case next week. In 2024, the apex court had declined to put on hold the two Election Commissioners' appointment under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The pleas were filed in the apex court seeking a stay on the Act by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Jaya Thakur (General Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee), Sanjay Narayanrao Meshram, Dharmendra Singh Kushwaha, and advocate Gopal Singh. The pleas challenged the Election Commissioners' law that has dropped the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel for appointing CEC and other Election Commissioners (ECs). The petitions stated that the provisions of the enactment are violative of the principle of free and fair elections since it does not provide an "independent mechanism" for appointment of the members of the Election Commission of India (ECI). The petitions said the Act excludes the Chief Justice of India from the process of appointment of the members of ECI and it's in violation of the March 2, 2023 verdict of the top court which had ordered that the appointment of members of the ECI be done on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha till a law is made by the Parliament. By excluding the CJI from the process, the judgement of the Supreme Court stands diluted as the Prime Minister and his nominee will always be "the deciding factor" in the appointments, said the petitions. The petitions in particular challenged Sections 7 and 8 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provisions lay down the procedure for the appointment of ECI members. They sought direction from the Centre to include the Chief Justice of India in the selection committee for the appointment of the CEC and ECs, which currently comprises the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The Act replaced the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.
