Top Stories
Remove Words Like "Hafta Wasooli", "Gunda Raj" From Video Against ANI : Delhi High Court Tells Mohak Mangal
While hearing news agency ANI's defamation suit against YouTuber Mohak Mangal alleging that his recent YouTube video is disparaging and defamatory towards the agency, the Delhi High Court on Thursday (May 29) orally suggested that certain words used by the YouTuber in his video were "offending". While rising for lunch hour, Justice Amit Bansal after watching the video asked Mangal's...
Supreme Court Allows Interim Bail To Odisha IAS Officer Manish Agarwal On Surrender Before Trial Court In Case Over PA's Death
The Supreme Court directed Manish Agarwal, IAS & former Collector of Malkangiri district (Odisha), in a case accused in a case relating to the suspicious death of his Personal Assistant (PA) in the year 2019, to surrender before the trial court and furnish bail bonds to its satisfaction, upon which he shall be released on interim bail.A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar...
Sometimes Bureaucrats Have Arrogance, Don't Want To Go Before HCs : Supreme Court On J&K Admn's Plea Against Show-Cause Notice
"Sometimes bureaucrats have arrogance, they don't want to go before High Courts", observed the Supreme Court yesterday while dealing with Jammu and Kashmir administration's grievance against J&K&L High Court's issuance of a show-cause notice against its officer(s) in a contempt case.Briefly put, the plea was filed assailing two orders of the J&K&L High Court (one by a Single...
Bangalore Palace Acquisition : Supreme Court Orders To Keep TDR Certificates In Registry, Bars Their Use If Already Released
The Supreme Court today, as an interim measure, directed that the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates issued in respect of acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds shall remain with the Registry of the Court.In case the TDRs have been released to the non-applicants, the same shall not be utilized or sold, the Court said.To recap, while dealing with a batch of...
Supreme Court Bars Fresh UP Police FIR Against Couple Who Alleged Harassment By Multiple FIRs
The Supreme Court yesterday restrained Uttar Pradesh authorities from registering any fresh FIR against a couple from a politically influential family who accused the state of lodging multiple false cases against them with oblique motives.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Indira Jaising on behalf of the petitioner-couple.At...
Supreme Court To Hear Next Week Plea Against Demolitions Ordered In Delhi's Jamia Nagar Batla House
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 29) agreed to hear next week an application filed against the demolition notices issued against certain constructions in Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Delhi.The application has been filed by 40 persons who say that they are genuine residents and property owners of Khasra Nos. 271 and 279, Batla House.Advocate-on-Record Adeel Ahmad mentioned the matter before...
'Bank Had To Consider CVC Advice Once It Was Called' : Supreme Court Quashes Disciplinary Action Against Ex-Union Bank Officer
The Supreme Court recently quashed the disciplinary proceedings against an ex-bank employee because the bank (Union Bank of India) initiated the proceedings and issued the charge sheet, bypassing its own regulations, which mandated the need for CVC's advice before taking disciplinary actions in vigilance-related cases. A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih heard the case involving...
Testimony of An Accomplice – Any Shift in the BSA?
An “accomplice" is an associate or partner in a crime.1 The expression "accomplice" is not defined in the Indian Evidence Act or in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (for short 'the BSA'). However, it is accepted that the word “accomplice" is used in its ordinary sense in the statutes. The evidence of an accomplice is usually admitted on the ground necessity, it being often impossible, without having recourse to such evidence, to bring the principal offenders to justice. The two...
UAPA | Blanket Order Barring Disclosure Of Witnesses' Statements Can't Be Passed Without Individual Threat Assessment : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a blanket restriction on the disclosure of witness statements in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) is impermissible. It emphasized that any order limiting the defence's access to such statements must be based on an individualised assessment, specifically whether a real threat exists to the life or safety of each witness....