Latest news with #SpecialLeavePetition
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Supreme Court to hear man's plea against detention of his mother by police in Assam
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on June 2 a plea of a 26-year-old man claiming illegal detention of his mother by Assam Police amid widespread allegations of covert deportations to Bangladesh. A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices A G Masih and AS Chandurkar took note of the submissions of senior advocate Shoeb Alam, representing petitioner Iunuch (Yunus) Ali, that his mother was detained by the state police. The CJI said the plea would be listed for hearing on Monday. Ali sought immediate release of his mother Monowara Bewa, who was reportedly detained on May 24 after being called to the Dhubri police station under the pretext of recording a statement. Alam raised serious concerns regarding what he described as an ongoing practice in Assam under which individuals are deported to Bangladesh even while their legal cases are pending. 'There is a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the lady in 2017. Notices have been issued, and yet people are being deported while proceedings are still ongoing before this court,' he said. 'There are several videos circulating that show individuals being picked up overnight and pushed back across the border.' Bewa was on bail since December 12, 2019, pursuant to the SC's order in a case, which allowed the conditional release of detenues who had spent more than three years in Assam's foreigner detention camps. The plea said when the petitioner approached the police station the next day and informed the officials that their case was still pending before the SC, he was denied access to his mother and her release was refused. The petition challenges the decision of the Gauhati HC, which upheld a Foreigners Tribunal ruling declaring Bewa a foreigner. The plea sought a direction to the authorities to immediately release Bewa from 'unlawful detention' at Dhubri police station. It also sought a direction restraining deportation of the detainee across any Indian border.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC to hear man's plea against detention of mother by Assam Police
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on June 2 a plea of a 26-year-old man claiming illegal detention of his mother by Assam Police amid widespread allegations of covert deportations to Bangladesh. A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and AS Chandurkar took note of the submissions of senior advocate Shoeb Alam, representing petitioner Iunuch Ali, that his mother has been detained by the state police. The CJI said the plea would be listed for hearing on Monday. Ali sought immediate release of his mother Monowara Bewa, who was reportedly detained on May 24 after being called to the Dhubri police station under the pretext of recording a statement. Alam raised serious concerns regarding what he described as an ongoing practice in Assam under which individuals are detained and deported to Bangladesh overnight, even while their legal cases are pending. "There is a Special Leave Petition filed by the lady in 2017. Notices have been issued, and yet people are being deported while proceedings are still ongoing before this court," he said. "There are several videos circulating that show individuals being picked up overnight and pushed back across the border," he added. Bewa had been on bail since December 12, 2019, pursuant to the Supreme Court's order in a case, which allowed the conditional release of detenues who had spent more than three years in Assam's foreigner detention camps. According to the plea, when the petitioner approached the police station the next day and informed the officials that their case was still pending before the Supreme Court, he was denied access to his mother and her release was refused. The petition challenges the decision of the Gauhati High Court, which upheld a Foreigners Tribunal ruling declaring Bewa a foreigner - a decision that has remained under challenge before the Supreme Court since 2017. The plea sought a direction to the authorities to immediately release Bewa from "unlawful detention" at Dhubri police station. It also sought a direction restraining deportation or "push back" of the detainee across any Indian border.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
SC refuses to stall ₹299 crore jetty project near Gateway of India
MUMBAI: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday declined to intervene in the ₹299 crore passenger jetty project near the Gateway of India, observing that the project serves the public interest. Instead, the apex court urged the Bombay High Court to expedite hearings on the pending petitions challenging the development. 'Something good is happening in Mumbai. Now you can reach Versova from South Mumbai in 40 minutes, which used to take three hours,' said Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, citing the Coastal Road as a successful example of contentious yet transformative infrastructure. The bench remarked that opposition to such projects often stemmed from a 'Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)' mindset. 'Everyone opposed the Coastal Road earlier, but now they are happy. This kind of opposition is typical,' the court noted during a hearing on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Dr Laura D'Souza, president of the Cuffe Parade Residents' Association. The SLP, filed through advocate Anagha S Desai of Desai Legal LLP, challenged the Bombay High Court's May 7 and 8 orders refusing to stay preparatory works on the jetty and terminal. The petition contended that the project would affect over 210,000 residents of the Colaba area and had commenced without adequate public consultation or stakeholder engagement. 'The project was launched without prior public notification or transparency, and poses irreversible damage to one of the city's most historic precincts,' Dr D'Souza argued. Several residents' groups and institutions have raised objections, including the Bombay Presidency Radio Club, business owners, frequent visitors, and elected representatives from both Houses of Parliament. The objectors have called for the jetty to be shifted to Princess Dock—cited in a feasibility report as a less intrusive alternative. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing Dr D'Souza, alleged that the proposed jetty caters largely to private users taking leisure ferries to Alibaug, framing it as a project designed for elite convenience rather than public necessity. Countering the claim, additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati said the jetty is a crucial piece of commuter infrastructure, aimed at easing the city's transport burden and improving connectivity. Dismissing the petition, the court reiterated its view that infrastructure progress often meets resistance from affluent localities. 'Everyone wants a sewage treatment plant, but not behind their house. This is NIMBY syndrome. Colaba is a neighbourhood of elitist people. It's tyanchi (their) Mumbai, not amchi (our) Mumbai,' the bench remarked. Reacting to the verdict, Dr D'Souza said she was disheartened. 'It is distressing to see that the iconic Gateway of India, which is a Grade-I heritage structure (of exceptional historical importance) is being sidelined. We urge the authorities to reconsider the long-term implications and prioritise the preservation of Mumbai's heritage.' She also expressed concern over the 'blatant disregard' for due process. 'The government seems to have bypassed critical steps of public engagement and environmental accountability,' she added. The matter now returns to the Bombay High Court, which has been asked to deliver a verdict on the petitions without further delay.
United News of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC declines to entertain intervention plea on FIR against BJP Madhya Pradesh Minister Shah
New Delhi, May 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court has refused to entertain an Intervention Application (IA) filed by Congress leader Dr. Jaya Thakur in support of the Madhya Pradesh High Court's suo motu direction for registering an FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah. The case pertains to allegedly communal and derogatory remarks made by Shah against Colonel Sofiya Quraishi, a decorated Army officer. The IA was filed in response to Kunwar Shah's Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the High Court's May 14, 2025 order. Dr. Thakur, through the application, argued that Shah's comments violated constitutional morality, the ministerial oath, and amounted to hate speech. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, however, declined to entertain the plea, with Justice Kant remarking, 'No, please don't. Don't file the application. Mr. Chaudhary, on that day also we told, please don't politicise any matter. We will stick to the problem.' Senior Advocate Anoop George Chaudhary, appearing for Dr. Thakur, urged the court to consider the broader implications, stating, 'There are so many questions. The question is also about the violation of the oath.' To this, Justice Kant responded, 'We will not say anything. You will file whatever petition you want to file. IA seeking intervention is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to avail appropriate independent remedy.' The Bench clarified that the IA involved a separate cause of action, and added, 'You know your remedy. We need not even point it out. You avail your remedy. We will welcome that.' Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, informed the Court that a report by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had been submitted, but given the ongoing nature of the investigation, it would not be made public. The Court recorded the status report filed by DIG Police, Bhopal, dated May 27, 2025, in compliance with its earlier directions. The Bench observed, 'Status report dated May 27, 2025, has been filed by DIG Police, Bhopal, inter alia pointing out that in compliance with order dated May 19, 2025, SIT comprising three IPS officers has been constituted. The SIT visited the site, conducted an investigation, prepared a Hindi transcript of the speech, seized mobile phones, and recorded statements of seven witnesses. The investigation is still at a preliminary stage. More time has been sought. Interim directions shall continue.' Further, the Supreme Court directed that the proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court be closed, as the apex court had taken cognisance of the matter: 'In view of the fact that this Court has taken cognisance of the matter, we request the High Court to close the proceedings on the date fixed.' Dr. Jaya Thakur, a medical professional and women's rights advocate, had described the High Court's suo motu FIR direction as necessary to protect constitutional values and public order. Her application detailed how the Minister's remarks allegedly communalised a national security issue and targeted Col. Quraishi based on her religion. The application referred to Shah's comments calling the officer 'the sister of terrorists who carried out the killings of 26 innocent Indians at Pahalgam' and claimed the Prime Minister 'sent the sister of the terrorists to sort them out.' A second controversial comment cited in the application involved inappropriate remarks made by the Minister during a public distribution event for girls' clothing, where he allegedly said, 'I didn't know what they wear underneath.' The application argued that such statements violated the Constitution and the oath of office under Schedule III, Form V, which mandates impartial service to all people. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), asserting that Shah's remarks amounted to hate speech. On May 15, 2025, when the matter first came before the Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, the Court had stressed that ministers must speak with a sense of responsibility, especially during sensitive times. On May 19, the Court had expressed skepticism over the apology offered by Shah. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had strongly condemned the remarks in its May 14 order, calling them 'scurrilous and unwarranted,' and stating that Shah had 'used the language of the gutters' against a serving Army officer. The Court emphasised that such comments not only harmed the dignity of the armed forces but could also amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. With the Supreme Court now seized of the matter, and having declined intervention by Dr. Thakur, the onus of further legal recourse rests with her before an appropriate forum. UNI SNG SSP
Hans India
23-05-2025
- Hans India
ED crossing all limits
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed all ongoing investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) into alleged irregularities at Tamil Nadu's state-run liquor distribution arm, the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC). A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih also rebuked the ED adding that the central agency had been 'crossing all limits' while conducting investigations into some recent cases. The court issued a notice to ED on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by TASMAC challenging the April 23 order of the Madras high court that had dismissed a batch of three writ petitions filed by the state and TASMAC to declare as illegal a search and seizure operation carried out by the ED at the corporation's headquarters in Chennai between March 6 and 8, 2025 in connection with a money laundering case. The Supreme Court bench orally questioned the legality of the ED's actions, particularly its decision to register a case against a corporation. 'How can you register a case against a corporation? You may register against individuals, but how against a corporation?' the bench asked ED counsel additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju. The court noted that ED had already registered FIRs against several high-ranking officials of TASMAC but was silent on the predicate offence in the case. 'Where is the predicate offence?' the bench asked. When Raju said the predicate offence was an alleged multi-crore money laundering case and that ED had done 'nothing wrong,' the bench intervened to say ED had been overreaching its powers recently. 'We are saying this again. Your ED has been crossing all limits, Mr Raju,' the court said. Representing TASMAC and its employees, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi argued that the agency had overstepped its mandate by cloning mobile phones and seizing personal devices without due process. 'There is something called privacy,' Rohatgi said, while Sibal urged the court to ensure that no data extracted from the devices be used. Earlier last month, the Supreme Court had refused to entertain Tamil Nadu government's plea to transfer the case against ED's raid on TASMAC and its subsequent search and seizure operations from the Madras High Court.
