Latest news with #MMSundresh
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC: Police can't serve notice or summon through WhatsApp or other electronic means
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has ruled WhatsApp or other electronic means cannot be used by police and other investigating agencies to serve notice to an accused to appear before it, Supreme Court has said while rejecting the plea of Haryana govt to allow police to serve notice through electronic means as it would adversely affect the liberty of the person. Pressing for electronic means of serving summons, the state submitted that the new law of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita allowed use of electronic means for court proceedings for issuance, service and execution of summons and warrant and that should be allowed to police also. But a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N K Singh said that summons issued by a court is a judicial act, whereas a notice issued by the investigating agency is an executive act and the procedure prescribed for a judicial act cannot be read into the procedure prescribed for an executive act. The court clarified that the issue of liberty is involved in the case of police summon as the person can be arrested for non-compliance of summon and in such cases it is appropriate that such a notice be served in person on the accused, and not through the mode of electronic communication. It accepted the submission of senior advocate Siddharth Luthra who is assisting the court as amicus curiae and told the bench that summons are to be served personally on the person, as per the regular mode of service. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo "The protection of one's liberty is a crucial aspect of the right to life guaranteed to each and every individual, under Article 21 of the Constitution. The procedure encapsulated in Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, seeks to secure this fundamental right, from encroachment by the relevant Authority, and therefore, any attempt to interpret the provision as a mere procedural one, would amount to rewriting the provision itself . .The Legislature, in its wisdom, has specifically excluded the service of a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS from the ambit of procedures permissible through electronic communication," the bench said. "When viewed from any lens, we are unable to convince ourselves that electronic communication is a valid mode of service of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, since its conscious omission is a clear manifestation of the legislative intent. Introducing a procedure into Section 35 of the BNSS, that has not been specifically provided for by the legislature, would be violative of its intent," the Supreme Court bench said.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Land-for-jobs case: Supreme Court refuses to defer Lalu Prasad's trial
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea filed by RJD president Lalu Prasad seeking deferment of trial court proceedings in the land-for-jobs case against him. Lalu moved the SC seeking directions to the trial court to adjourn proceedings till the Delhi High Court concludes hearing his petition to quash the case. Refusing to put brakes on the proceedings in the lower court, a division bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh clarified that the trial court's framing of charges in the case would not render Lalu's quashing petition in the HC infructuous. "We are not passing any order. Taking note of the apprehension, we say framing of charges will not make the pending petition before the HC infructuous," the bench said. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Operations Management CXO Others Data Science Degree MBA Data Analytics Technology Management Public Policy Digital Marketing healthcare Product Management Design Thinking PGDM Cybersecurity Finance Artificial Intelligence Leadership MCA Project Management Healthcare others Data Science Skills you'll gain: Quality Management & Lean Six Sigma Analytical Tools Supply Chain Management & Strategies Service Operations Management Duration: 10 Months IIM Lucknow IIML Executive Programme in Strategic Operations Management & Supply Chain Analytics Starts on Jan 27, 2024 Get Details Lalu had moved an application in the top court seeking deferment of trial court proceedings in the land-for-jobs case at least till after August 12, when the Delhi HC is slated to hear his plea seeking quashing of the case. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 most beautiful women in the world Undo Earlier this month, the apex court had refused to entertain a plea filed by Lalu to stay trial court proceedings in the land-for-jobs case in which he, his kin and other accused stand chargesheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over corruption and conspiracy. Lalu had moved the SC challenging a May 29 order of the Delhi High Court refusing to stay the trial court proceedings. Refusing to put brakes on the trial, a division bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh on July 18 had said it would ask the Delhi HC to decide Lalu's plea that seeks quashing of the CBI case. The apex court then asked the high court to decide Lalu's plea expeditiously. Live Events ET had reported earlier this month that Lalu had moved an application in the trial court seeking to summon old records of the land-for-jobs case investigated by the CBI. The CBI has already concluded its arguments on framing of charges against Lalu, his kin and other co-accused.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court rejects Haryana plea, says cops can't serve summons via WhatsApp
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has rejected the Haryana government's application to be allowed to serve police summons electronically via WhatsApp, and reiterated its direction to the police to serve physical notices to individuals required for investigation. A WhatsApp icon is displayed on an iPhone, Nov. 15, 2018 (AP FILE) 'We are unable to convince ourselves that electronic communication is a valid mode of service of notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, since its conscious omission is a clear manifestation of the legislative intent,' a bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said. The order was passed on July 16, but uploaded to the top court's website on Wednesday. The state had approached the top court challenging the January 21 order passed by the top court in Satinder Kumar Antil v CBI, where the court sought to address gaps in safeguarding the rights of accused facing investigation under various crimes. The bench emphasised that any breach of a notice issued by police under Section 41A of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires a person to join an investigation, has serious consequences, as it could lead to arrest and deprive individuals of their personal liberty. The court arrived at this finding with the assistance given by senior advocate Siddharth Luthra as amicus curiae. Haryana argued that while electronic means were prescribed under BNSS for issuing court notices and summoning witnesses, the same should also be applied to Section 35, as essentially what is required of the individual is to participate in the investigation and not to be arrested. However, Luthra stated that a notice served through WhatsApp or other electronic communication modes is not contemplated as a mode of service under Section 35 of the BNSS. He referred to provisions of BNSS that pertain to electronic means, but they are specifically excluded from the process of investigating a case. The bench noted these submissions and said, ' Introducing a procedure into Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, that has not been specifically provided for by the legislature, would be violative of its intent.' The court further stated, 'The protection of one's liberty is a crucial aspect of the right to life guaranteed to each and every individual, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The procedure encapsulated in Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, seeks to secure this fundamental right from encroachment by the relevant authority, and therefore, any attempt to interpret the provision as a mere procedural one would amount to rewriting the provision itself.' It concluded that service of a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 needs to be carried out in a manner that protects this substantive right, as non-compliance with the notice can have a drastic effect on the liberty of an individual. The January 21 order held that service of the section 41-A notices through WhatsApp or other modes of electronic communication, cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC or BNSS. Haryana had referred to a proviso under Section 64(2) of BNSS, which permits the service of court summons through electronic mode. Similarly, Haryana pointed out that Section 71 allowed electronic mode for calling witnesses. But the court underlined a distinction. 'The proviso to Section 64(2) of the BNSS, 2023 provides a discretion of also serving summons by electronic communication, only when they bear the image of the court's seal.' On the comparison drawn with Section 71 of the BNSS, the decision noted that the same has no immediate bearing on the liberty of an individual in case of any non-compliance. However, breach of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, would have an immediate bearing on the liberty,' the court said.
Time of India
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
‘Not to be a precedent': SC stays 11/7 train blasts verdict
New Delhi: Supreme Court Thursday stayed the Bombay high court order acquitting all 12 accused, including five death sentence convicts, in the 11/7 Mumbai train blasts case of 2006 but directed that they would not have to go back to prison and would remain free till it finally decided the case. As the HC ruling touched upon various provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) which could have a bearing on trial of other cases under it, a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N K Singh said the HC ruling would not be treated as a precedent as of now. At the start of the hearing, SG Tushar Mehta, appearing for state govt, pressed for stay on order because of its potential to affect other cases, but clarified that the govt did not want the accused to be sent back to jail. He informed the bench that all accused had been freed after the HC verdict and could remain outside, but requested the court to stay the order. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Agreeing with the SG's plea, the bench stayed the July 21 order and issued notice to all accused seeking their response on the govt's appeal seeking quashing of the HC verdict, which would revive the trial court's conviction order. Hearing Maharashtra govt's appeal against the Bombay HC acquittal of 12 accused of the 11/7 Mumbai train blasts case, an SC bench on Tuesday observed, "We have been informed that all respondents have been released and there is no question of bringing them back to prison. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like AirSense 11 – Smart tech for deep sleep ResMed Buy Now Undo However, taking note of the submission made by the solicitor general on the question of law, we are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. To that extent, there is a stay of the impugned judgment." The HC had quashed the judgment of a special MCOCA court which had convicted all accused and handed death sentence to five and life term to seven for the blasts on Mumbai's Western Railway local network on July 11, 2006, in which 189 people died and nearly 820 sustained injuries. A bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak had held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt of the accused and severely indicted the prosecution for its shoddy probe. In its judgment, the HC said "creating a false appearance of having solved a case by presenting that the accused have been brought to justice gives a misleading sense of resolution."
Time of India
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court stays use of Bombay HC's 7/11 blast verdict as precedent, but won't halt release of acquitted accused
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday stayed the Bombay High Court verdict in the Mumbai train blasts case of July 11, 2006 to the limited extent that it will not be treated as a precedent in other cases. A division bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, however, refused to stay the release of the 11 accused who were acquitted by the high court. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Finance Others Operations Management healthcare PGDM Technology MBA Data Analytics Healthcare CXO Digital Marketing Degree Design Thinking Public Policy others Data Science Management Product Management Project Management MCA Leadership Cybersecurity Artificial Intelligence Data Science Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details The bench ordered, "all respondents (accused) released and thus no question to bring them back to prison. However, on the question of law we will say that impugned judgment is not treated as precedent in any other cases. Therefore, to that extent let there be stay on the impugned judgment". Appearing on behalf of Maharashtra government , solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued that the high court ruling could adversely affect other trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act ( MCOCA ). Hence, Mehta sought an urgent stay on the verdict though he did not press for a stay on the release of the acquitted persons. Mehta said as far as stay is concerned, he is "not on liberty" of the accused. Live Events Referring to the high court ruling, Mehta added "there are some findings which will affect all our MCOCA trials. The judgment can be stayed and release be not hampered". The court agreed and granted limited stay on the judgment as urged by Mehta. The bench issued notice to the respondents, directing them to file their responses to the appeal filed by Maharashtra government challenging the high court verdict. In its appeal, the Maharashtra government has challenged the Bombay High Court's decision to acquit all the 12 accused in the 7/11 train blasts case of 2006, nearly a decade after a special court awarded death penalty to five accused and life sentences to the remaining. The case relates to the serial bomb blasts that occurred on July 11, 2006, in which seven bombs exploded in suburban trains on Mumbai's Western Railway line, killing 187 people and injuring more than 800 people. A special court had in 2015 sentenced five of the accused to death and seven to life imprisonment. One of the convicts died in 2021 due to Covid-19 while lodged in Nagpur jail. The Bombay High Court on Monday acquitted all the accused observing that "the prosecution utterly failed in establishing the case beyond reasonable doubts". Lambasting the prosecution, the high court ruled that the prosecution's case gave the public a "misleading sense of resolution" while "the true threat remains at large".
