Latest news with #SubramoniumPrasad
New Indian Express
10 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
‘CBSE can't have records at odds with passport'
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) cannot retain records that contradict a person's passport, warning that such discrepancies could create confusion regarding an individual's identity in matters of employment or immigration. 'A citizen of the country is entitled to a true and correct narration of all necessary and relevant particulars in the public documents that pertain to them,' a division bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed in its judgment on June 4. The court noted that both the matriculation certificate and passport are regarded as 'an unassailable and valid proof of date of birth,' and reiterated that CBSE, as a record-keeper, holds a position of significant public importance. The ruling came while hearing an appeal filed by CBSE challenging a single judge's decision that allowed a correction of the date of birth in the case of one Prema Evelyn D Cruz. She had sought an amendment in her All India Secondary School Examination certificate based on her official birth certificate issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation. CBSE argued the request was barred by limitation under its Bye-laws and Weeding Out Rules, 1998, as documents older than ten years may be destroyed. It also claimed relevant records were unavailable. However, Cruz contended that procedural constraints or document destruction should not prevent CBSE from correcting errors based on valid public documents. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the High Court noted that official birth certificates carry a statutory presumption of correctness and found 'no cogent reason' for CBSE to disregard hers. 'If the CBSE record is at variance with the Passport, it could lead to considerable doubt... for employment, immigration or any other purpose,' the Bench observed, upholding the single judge's ruling and dismissing CBSE's appeal.
Hindustan Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘Why December 13 and Parliament?': Delhi HC asks accused in 2023 security breach case
The Delhi high court on Tuesday questioned the accused in the 2023 security breach, asking why they chose December 13, the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack, and why they targeted the complex instead of using designated protest sites. A division bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar raised the query while hearing the bail pleas of accused Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who are among those arrested in connection with the incident. The case pertains to a serious security breach that occurred on December 13, 2023 , the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack. On that day, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow gas from canisters, and shouted slogans before being subdued by MPs. Simultaneously, two other accused, Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad, allegedly sprayed coloured gas from canisters while chanting slogans such as 'tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't work)' outside the Parliament premises. While reserving its order on the bail pleas, the court asked the accused, 'Why did you choose that date (December 13 which is also the date of 2001 Parliament attack) for your protest? Why did you choose that place when you know that it is the Parliament? When there are designated places to protest, why did you choose that day and place and then decide to hold your protest in and around the Parliament. Would that not amount to overawing the country?' Counsel for the accused responded that the actual intention behind the act would be established during the course of the trial. He further contended that the alleged actions did not fall under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which defines terrorist activity. The court also directed the prosecution to clarify whether the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the accused at the time of their detention. It was informed that the trial court has scheduled the matter for June 5 to hear arguments on the framing of charges. Accordingly, the High Court asked the trial court to proceed with the hearing on charges as planned. The Delhi high court also cited hypothetical scenarios, observing that had the accused staged their protest at locations like the Delhi Zoo or Jantar Mantar, even with smoke canisters, it might not have raised serious concerns. However, their deliberate choice of Parliament as the protest site was deeply questionable. 'If you had gone to Jantar Mantar with smoke canisters, no problem. If you would have gone even in the boat club, even though it is prohibited… even then we would have seen it later on. But when you choose Parliament, and what makes it worse is that the Parliament is in session on a day when the attendance would have been the maximum and the parliamentarians pay homage to martyrs of the 2001 Parliament attack, then whether it can prima facie come under Section 15 of the UAPA is what we will have to consider. We will have to think very hard.' the bench observed. The court also asked the police to clarify whether carrying or using a smoke canister, inside or outside Parliament, falls under the definition of terrorist activity and attracts charges under the UAPA. Opposing the bail pleas, the prosecution said the preliminary inquiry revealed that accused Azad and Shinde were associates of Sharma and Manoranjan D, and that they had jointly carried out the act. With PTI inputs
NDTV
20-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
"Why Parliament, December 13?" Delhi High Court Asks Accused In Security Breach Case
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked those arrested in the 2023 Parliament security breach case the reason for choosing a specific date and place for protests when they were aware of earmarked spots for protests in the capital. A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar posed the query while hearing bail pleas of accused Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who were arrested in the case. In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow gas from canisters and sloganeered before they were overpowered by some MPs. Around the same time, two other accused -- Amol Shinde and Azad -- allegedly sprayed coloured gas from canisters while shouting "tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't work)" outside the Parliament premises. The court on Tuesday reserved its order on the pleas, but asked the accused, "Why did you choose that date (December 13, which is also the date of the 2001 Parliament attack) for your protest? Why did you choose that place when you know that it is the Parliament? When there are designated places to protest, why did you choose that day and place and then decide to hold your protest in and around the Parliament? Would that not amount to overawing the country?" The counsel said the real intention behind the act would be determined during the trial. He argued the alleged act did not fall under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), defining a terror activity. The high court asked the prosecution to inform whether or not the grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused at the time of arrest. The high court was informed that the trial court has fixed the matter for June 5 for hearing arguments on framing of charges. It asked the trial court to proceed further and hear the arguments on the charge on that day. The court also gave instances of certain situations and said if the accused had gone to the Delhi Zoo or Jantar Mantar for protests, even with smoke canisters, it would not be an issue, but the specific choice of Parliament was questionable. "If you had gone to Jantar Mantar with smoke canisters, no problem. If you would have gone even in the boat club, even though it is prohibited.. even then we would have seen it later on. But when you choose Parliament, and what makes it worse is that the Parliament is in session on a day when the attendance would have been the maximum and the parliamentarians pay homage to martyrs of the 2001 Parliament attack, then whether it can prima facie come under Section 15 of the UAPA is what we will have to consider. We will have to think very hard...," it said. The court also asked the police to explain whether carrying or using a smoke canister, inside and outside Parliament, attracted UAPA and if it fell under the definition of terrorist activities. The bail pleas were opposed by the prosecution, which said during the preliminary inquiry, it was revealed that the accused, Azad and Shind,e were associates of Sharma and Manoranjan D, and they together committed the terror act. Calling it a preplanned act, it alleged the accused destroyed evidence, including cell phones and SIM cards. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the prosecution, argued that the noxious substance coming out of smoke canisters contacted the bodies of the parliamentarians, which would be covered under the definition of criminal force. "It is not an assault or attack on ABC. It is an assault on those who represent the electorate of this country; 140 crore people are crystallised and subsumed in a particular place,e which is the temple of democracy," he said. He argued that specifically choosing Parliament and December 13 brought the act within the act of "threatening or likely to threaten the security of the country" and "likely to strike terror" under the UAPA, which was evidenced from the fact that the parliamentarians expressed their anguish in various interviews to the media.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Delhi HC seeks NIA's reply on Engineer Rashid's plea in terror funding case
The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought the NIA's stand on a bail plea by Baramulla MP Engineer Rashid in a terror funding case. A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar issued notice on the parliamentarian's appeal against a trial court order which refused to grant him bail on March 21. The bench also asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to respond to a separate plea by Rashid challenging the framing of charges in the case. It clarified that the NIA's reply shall be filed only with respect to the question of a delay of around 1,100 days in mounting the challenge against the charges. The court listed both cases for hearing on July 29. Rashid has been lodged in Tihar jail since 2019 after he was arrested by the NIA under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the 2017 terror funding case.
The Hindu
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Delhi HC seeks NIA's stand on Engineer Rashid's bail plea in terror funding case
The Delhi High Court on Thursday (May 15, 2025) sought the NIA's stand on a bail plea by Baramulla MP Engineer Rashid in a terror funding case. A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar issued notice on the parliamentarian's appeal against a trial court order which refused to grant him bail on March 21. The bench also asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to respond to a separate plea by Rashid challenging the framing of charges in the case. It clarified that the NIA's reply shall be filed only with respect to the question of a delay of around 1,100 days in mounting the challenge against the charges. The court listed both cases for hearing on July 29. Rashid has been lodged in Tihar jail since 2019 after he was arrested by the NIA under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the 2017 terror funding case.
