Latest news with #PBVarale
Hindustan Times
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘Violates fundamental rights': SC sets aside narco test order
A narco-analysis test cannot be conducted on an accused person without their consent, and the results of such tests cannot form the sole basis of conviction in a criminal case, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday. Emphasising that the pursuit of modern investigative tools cannot override fundamental constitutional protections, the top court underscored that involuntary narco tests infringe upon the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and PB Varale set aside a 2023 Patna high court order that had accepted an investigating officer's proposal to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused and witnesses in a dowry harassment case linked to the disappearance of a woman. 'We have no doubt that the impugned order cannot be sustained,' said the bench said, adding that 'under no circumstances is an involuntary or forced narco-analysis test permissible under law.' The court held that the high court erred in accepting the submission of the police for administering the test, noting that it contravened the law laid down in the landmark 2010 ruling in Selvi vs State of Karnataka, where a three-judge bench had declared such techniques unconstitutional if done without consent. 'Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution are non-derogable and sacrosanct rights to which the judiciary cannot carve out exceptions…Involuntary administration of narco-analysis and similar tests is in contravention of the protection given by Article 20(3)...The results of such involuntary tests cannot be considered as material evidence in the eyes of the law,' noted the bench. To be sure, a narco-analysis test is a forensic interrogation technique in which a suspect is injected with a psychoactive drug to lower their inhibitions and suppress their reasoning ability, in an attempt to extract information, they might otherwise withhold. The bench further stated that permitting such tests without consent would breach a person's right to privacy and amount to a disproportionate exercise of police powers. The apex court also rejected the state's argument that 'modern investigative techniques are the need of the hour,' saying such measures must never come at the cost of constitutional guarantees. 'While the need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21,' it said. The Court also clarified that a voluntary narco-analysis test, undertaken at an appropriate stage and with adequate safeguards, may be permissible. However, the outcome of such tests, by itself, cannot form the sole basis for a conviction. 'A report of a voluntary narco-analysis test with adequate safeguards in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction,' held the court, referring to the evidentiary value of discoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The third key issue addressed in the judgment was whether an accused has an indefeasible right to undergo a narco-analysis test voluntarily. As highlighted by senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal, who assisted the bench as amicus curiae, the bench noted conflicting views from different high courts, including a Rajasthan high court ruling which held that the accused could seek such a test under their right to lead evidence. Rejecting that interpretation, the bench held: 'It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature... Such a right is not absolute.' Simultaneously, the bench acknowledged that an accused may move an application seeking a voluntary narco test during trial, and if such a plea is made, the concerned court must carefully assess the totality of circumstances, including free consent and necessary safeguards, before allowing the test. 'The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an appropriate stage... However, there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco-analysis test,' the judgment clarified. Concluding, the apex court said that the Patna high court's decision to allow narco-analysis at the bail stage was not only premature but outside the scope of what a court considers while adjudicating a bail application. 'It does not involve entering into a roving enquiry or accepting the use of involuntary investigative techniques,' it added.
Mint
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Supreme Court asks Centre to establish POCSO courts on ‘top priority basis'
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the central government to establish POCSO courts on "top priority basis" to exclusively deal with cases of sexual offences against children. Due to the inadequacy of the number of exclusive courts for the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cases, the timelines mandated under the law for completion of trials weren't adhered to, said the apex court. "It is therefore expected that the union of India and the state governments shall take appropriate steps to sensitise the officials associated with the investigation of POCSO cases, and also to create dedicated courts to try POCSO cases on top priority basis," said a Supreme Court bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale. The apex court was hearing a petition underlining the "alarming rise in the number of reported child rape incidents" in a suo motu case. The court also directed filing of chargesheets within the mandatory period stipulated in law besides completing trials within the prescribed time frame. The SC noted that while majority states, with the funding from the Centre, complied with the directions for setting up exclusive courts for POCSO cases, in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, and a few other states, more POCSO courts were required given the pendency of such cases. Earlier, the top court had directed senior advocate and amicus curiae V. Giri and senior advocate Uttara Babbar to submit state-wise details on the status of POCSO courts. It asked states to set up two designated courts in districts where the number of pending cases of child abuse under the POCSO Act was more than 300. A court in Thane has sentenced a 32-year-old man to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the rape and sexual assault of a then 11-year-old girl in the district in 2013. Dinesh S. Deshmukh, special judge for Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act cases, delivered the verdict on Wednesday. Bablu alias Mohammad Mustapha Imtiyaz Shaikh who was 20 years old at the time of the crime was found guilty under relevant sections of the POCSO Act and for rape under the Indian Penal Code.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
SC directs Centre to set up special POCSO court on priority basis
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre to set up on "top priority basis" dedicated POCSO courts to exclusively deal with cases of sexual offences against children. A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and P B Varale said due to the inadequacy of the number of exclusive courts for the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cases, the timelines mandated under the law for completion of trials weren't adhered to. "It is therefore expected that the union of India and the state governments shall take appropriate steps to sensitise the officials associated with the investigation of POCSO cases, and also to create dedicated courts to try POCSO cases on top priority basis," the bench said. The top court further directed filing of chargesheets within the mandatory period stipulated in law besides completing trials within the prescribed time frame. The apex court noted while majority states, with the funding from the Centre, complied with the directions for setting up exclusive courts for POCSO cases, in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, and a few other states, more POCSO courts were required given the pendency of such cases. The top court had previously directed senior advocate and amicus curiae V Giri and senior advocate Uttara Babbar to submit state-wise details on the status of POCSO courts. The apex court was hearing a petition underlining the "alarming rise in the number of reported child rape incidents" in a suo motu case. The top court asked states to set up two designated courts in districts where the number of pending cases of child abuse under the POCSO Act was more than 300. It made it clear that its July 2019 direction to set up one court in each district with more than 100 FIRs under POCSO Act meant a designated court would only deal with such cases under the law. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC directs Centre to set up special POCSO courts on priority basis
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre to set up on "top priority basis" dedicated POCSO courts to exclusively deal with cases of sexual offences against children. A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and P B Varale said due to the inadequacy of the number of exclusive courts for the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cases, the timelines mandated under the law for completion of trials weren't adhered to. "It is therefore expected that the union of India and the state governments shall take appropriate steps to sensitise the officials associated with the investigation of POCSO cases, and also to create dedicated courts to try POCSO cases on top priority basis," the bench said. The top court further directed filing of chargesheets within the mandatory period stipulated in law besides completing trials within the prescribed time frame. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Dermatologista se você tem fungo nas unhas, faça isso imediatamente Acabe com os Fungo Undo The apex court noted while majority states, with the funding from the Centre, complied with the directions for setting up exclusive courts for POCSO cases, in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, and a few other states, more POCSO courts were required given the pendency of such cases. The top court had previously directed senior advocate and amicus curiae V Giri and senior advocate Uttara Babbar to submit state-wise details on the status of POCSO courts. Live Events The apex court was hearing a petition underlining the "alarming rise in the number of reported child rape incidents " in a suo motu case. The top court asked states to set up two designated courts in districts where the number of pending cases of child abuse under the POCSO Act was more than 300. It made it clear that its July 2019 direction to set up one court in each district with more than 100 FIRs under POCSO Act meant a designated court would only deal with such cases under the law.
Hindustan Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC directs Centre to set up special POCSO court on priority basis
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre to set up on "top priority basis" dedicated POCSO courts to exclusively deal with cases of sexual offences against children. A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and P B Varale said due to the inadequacy of the number of exclusive courts for the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act cases, the timelines mandated under the law for completion of trials weren't adhered to. "It is therefore expected that the union of India and the state governments shall take appropriate steps to sensitise the officials associated with the investigation of POCSO cases, and also to create dedicated courts to try POCSO cases on top priority basis," the bench said. The top court further directed filing of chargesheets within the mandatory period stipulated in law besides completing trials within the prescribed time frame. The apex court noted while majority states, with the funding from the Centre, complied with the directions for setting up exclusive courts for POCSO cases, in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, and a few other states, more POCSO courts were required given the pendency of such cases. The top court had previously directed senior advocate and amicus curiae V Giri and senior advocate Uttara Babbar to submit state-wise details on the status of POCSO courts. The apex court was hearing a petition underlining the "alarming rise in the number of reported child rape incidents" in a suo motu case. The top court asked states to set up two designated courts in districts where the number of pending cases of child abuse under the POCSO Act was more than 300. It made it clear that its July 2019 direction to set up one court in each district with more than 100 FIRs under POCSO Act meant a designated court would only deal with such cases under the law.
