Latest news with #Sibal
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Delhi Confidential: Heavy hitters
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal is learnt to be leading the battery of lawyers appearing for Justice Yashwant Varma in the challenge against in-house inquiry mechanism that indicted him. Sibal will be joined by former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, and Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Siddharth Agarwal. Both Sibal and Luthra have handled impeachment proceedings in the past. While Sibal appeared for Justice V Ramaswami in 1993 and spearheaded the motion against former CJI Dipak Misra, Luthra appeared for Justice S K Gangele. Soft Diplomacy Many delegates, who were part of the post-Operation Sindoor global outreach, had called for more soft diplomacy and exchange programmes. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seems to have taken this up. During a meeting Friday with a South Korean delegation led by former prime minister Kim Boo Kyum, Birla proposed the idea of parliamentary friendship groups from the Indian side. Such groups from both sides are expected to have interactions in future. Quick Exit Many officials and politicians tend to overstay in their official bungalows long after demitting office. Former IAS officer Amitabh Kant, however, vacated his official bungalow at 6, New Moti Bagh within a month of resigning as India's G20 Sherpa on June 15.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Kapil Sibal an average lawyer, can't dictate his personal agenda to Parliament: Kiren Rijiju
Dismissing Kapil Sibal as an " average lawyer ", Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Friday said Parliament cannot be dictated by one MP's "personal agenda". Rijiju's attack came after Sibal said the opposition must not support any move by the government to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma till an inquiry is set up under impeachment proceedings against Justice Shekhar Yadav for his "communal" remarks. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Degree Artificial Intelligence Management others Digital Marketing Design Thinking Finance CXO Healthcare Data Analytics Data Science Project Management Data Science Others Public Policy healthcare Operations Management Technology Cybersecurity Product Management MBA Leadership PGDM MCA Skills you'll gain: Data-Driven Decision-Making Strategic Leadership and Transformation Global Business Acumen Comprehensive Business Expertise Duration: 2 Years University of Western Australia UWA Global MBA Starts on Jun 28, 2024 Get Details "I got information about Kapil Sibal's effort to protect somebody and to move against somebody. What I have realised is that Kapil Sibal is a senior person, but he is only driven by his personal agenda. 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 "He doesn't have a concern for anybody. I have requested him to also spend some time in Parliament. He thinks that he can sermonise the MPs and then go back to court," Rijiju told PTI in an interview when asked about Sibal's remarks on the removal of the judges concerned. The Union minister said. "He (Sibal) does not realise that many MPs have gone far beyond him in terms of understanding, intellectuality, in terms of knowledge. The far super citizen, he is a very average lawyer, but he has been put into such a thing... that he is the person who will shed light on everything. He can't guide the Parliament of India ." Live Events Noting that Parliament will be guided by all its members, Rijiju said, "We will not be driven by one lawyer MP's agenda. We are not here to set an agenda or drive an agenda. We are working purely in the interest of the country." "Why should one person be running around? He has no business guiding Parliament. Parliament is to be guided by all the members combined," the minister said. The Parliamentary Affairs minister said he would not take a stand on the issue of the removal motion of any judge or any proposal in hand because the Parliament session is going to begin on July 21. Rijiju asserted that Parliament is the only forum to remove a judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courts, and that is the rule. They cannot be removed by any other platform because Parliament is the highest elected platform, he noted, adding that the people of India elect their representatives in Parliament. Sibal has been vocal on the petition for the removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav, signed by 55 Rajya Sabha MPs of several opposition parties , which he claimed has been pending since December 2024. He has also accused the government of "trying to protect" Justice Yadav.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
SC refuses to intervene in appeal by Lalu Prasad for stay of trial
: The Supreme Court on Friday (July 18, 2025) refused to intervene in an interim order of the Delhi High Court declining to stay a corruption trial against former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad in a land-for-jobs case. However, a Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh asked the Delhi High Court to expedite the hearing in the main petition filed by Mr. Yadav to quash the criminal case registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Bench also made it clear observations made by the High Court in the interim order would not affect the disposal of the main petition. The apex court said it did not want to comment on the case against Mr. Yadav on the basis of an appeal filed by him challenging an interim order of the High Court. The court further dispensed with the presence of Mr. Yadav from the trial proceedings after considering his age and health. Corruption case pertains to Lalu's tenure as Railway Minister Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Yadav, said the corruption case was related to Group D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Mr. Yadav's tenure as the Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of his family or associates. The case was registered on May 18, 2022, against Mr. Yadav and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons. Mr. Sibal submitted that the FIR was lodged after a 14-year delay despite initial enquiries and investigations had led to the filing of a closure report in the competent court. He questioned why the CBI had not taken prior sanction before prosecuting Mr. Yadav, whose actions as a Minister was under question. 'The investigation cannot start without a prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The agency had taken sanction for all the government servants, except him [Yadav]... The enthusiasm is telling,' Mr. Sibal said. Appearing for the CBI, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju countered that sanction was not required as the offence was allegedly committed prior to the 2018 amendment of the Act inserting Section 17A. Mr. Sibal responded that the FIR however was registered in 2021, post the amendment. The Bench said it did not want to look into the merits and facts of the case, which may be left to the High Court to consider.
India Today
3 days ago
- India Today
Supreme Court raps Karnataka High Court for bail to actor Darshan in murder case
The Supreme Court on Thursday orally expressed serious reservations about the manner in which the Karnataka High Court granted bail to Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa in the Renukaswamy murder to Live Law, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that it was not at all convinced by the High Court's exercise of discretion and asked Darshan's lawyers to present compelling reasons for why the apex court should not matter pertains to a special leave petition filed by the Karnataka government against the High Court's order dated December 13, 2024, which had granted bail to Darshan, who is accused of involvement in the torture and killing of 33-year-old Renukaswamy. The victim, described as a fan of actor and Darshan's associate Pavithra Gowda, had reportedly sent obscene messages to her. According to police, Darshan allegedly abducted Renukaswamy from Chitradurga and subjected him to brutal torture over three days in a shed in Bengaluru in June 2024. The man later died, and his body was found dumped in a drain. Darshan, along with Pavithra Gowda, Anu Kumar, Lakshman M, V Vinay, Jagadeesh, Pradoosh S Rao, and Nagaraju R, had approached the High Court after a sessions court rejected their bail the outset of the hearing, Justice Pardiwala addressed Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Darshan. 'What do you have to say Mr Sibal? To be very honest with you, we are not convinced with the manner in which the High Court has exercised discretion. Very honestly, we will say this. We will hear you because your clients are on bail, they have come for cancellation of bail and you must have seen the manner in which the High Court had dictated the order,' he to the bench, Sibal argued that irrespective of the High Court's order, the Supreme Court could examine the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with testimonies from two or three key witnesses, including those from the Pardiwala, while listing the matter for hearing next Tuesday, said, 'You need to convince us that there is no good reason for this court to interfere.' When Sibal sought clarification on which part of the High Court's judgment the bench found problematic, Justice Pardiwala pointed to a specific portion. 'That part of the order, Mr Sibal, where the High Court was really panting how to release them on bail,' he bench also questioned Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the State of Karnataka, on whether the accused had any criminal antecedents. The court asked that such details, if any, be presented at the next hearing. Luthra, in his submission, said the matter involved not just antecedents but also conduct after being granted bail. 'He is sitting on the stage with one of our key witnesses in a public function. It is a little disturbing,' he this, Sibal responded that the person referred to was not a key witness. Luthra retorted, 'If he was not a key witness, then what was the definition of key witness?' The case is scheduled to be heard again next week.- Ends IN THIS STORY#Karnataka
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Take call by Monday on screening of Udaipur Files: Supreme Court to I&B ministry
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the special committee constituted by the ministry of information and broadcasting to decide by Monday pleas opposing screening of censor board-cleared 'Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder' on the ground that the movie, based on the beheading of the Udaipur tailor for allegedly blaspheming Prophet Muhammad, marked shocking and vicious vilification of Muslims. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Maulana Arshad Madani, and senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared for prime accused in Kanhaiya Lal's beheading case Mohammad Javed, argued against release of the film alleging that it vilified a particular community, would prejudice the trial in the murder case, put the accused's life in danger and also derogated the judiciary. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also asked the police to ensure protection of the producer of the film and his son who have received death threats. For the film producer, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia told the bench that the film was cleared by Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) after incorporation of 55 cuts. He said the petitioners moved Delhi HC at the eleventh hour to stall release of the film, adding that the producer was suffering huge losses apart from stifling of his free speech. Terming the case a contest between right to free speech and right to life, the Justice Kant-led bench asked the committee constituted by the I&B ministry to decide Madani's representation against the release of the film by Monday, the next date of hearing. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years IC Markets Learn More Undo It also allowed counsel for the main accused in the beheading case to participate in the proceedings before the committee. The bench those who apprehend the trial getting prejudiced had a right to be heard. It also considered the threats allegedly received by the producer and his son warning them against releasing the film. The SC asked the police to evaluate the threat perception and take appropriate steps to protect them. Sibal said he, as counsel for Madani, had watched the film during an HC-ordered special screening. "Once I saw the movie, I was shaken in every sense. It is a complete thematic dissertation of hate." The bench pointed to Sibal's advocacy of free speech and recalled telling the senior advocate that he would one day be arguing against free speech. This is one such occasion, Justice Kant said. Sibal said, "See the movie. It is something that generates violence... seeds violence. It is complete vilification of one community and not one positive aspect of the community is projected in the movie - violence, homosexuality, denigration of women. It is unthinkable that a democratic nation would allow screening of such a film." Bhatia said, "Beheading of the tailor and posting of its video on social media had more than one crore views. Videos were released prior to the beheading and after accomplishment of the sinister and gruesome act. None of the petitioners protested such a posting of video on social media. The film gives a message of communal harmony and is an appeal against violence." Kanhaiya Lal had apologised for forwarding the post that the killers dubbed as sacrilegious. Guruswamy said the accused Javed would be completely prejudiced during the trial if the film was released. "Free speech cannot be allowed to vitiate fair trial," she said, adding that certain remarks in the film by touching upon two sub-judice cases - the tailor beheading and Gyanvapi - also brought the judiciary into disrepute. Justice Kant said the SC was not bothered about derogatory remarks against the judiciary, as it was used to daily bashing by so-called intellectuals. "We are used to this kind of bashing every day. Our judicial officers are not school-going children or adolescents to get affected by a movie or get swayed by a few dialogues in a film to decide a case. We are confident about their ability, competence, objectivity and the sense of detachment they carry," he said.
