Army major, two Jaish militants among seven killed in Pulwama encounter

New Delhi, May 19: In a fresh blow to saffronite journalist Arnab Goswami, the Supreme Court of India today rejected his plea seeking transfer of the investigation of a case, filed against him for defaming Congress interim president Sonia Gandhi, to the CBI. The court also refused to quash the FIRs filed against him.

Goswami, editor-in-chief of Republic TV, has been booked in connection with a TV show on the gathering of migrants outside Bandra railway station on April 14. This apart, multiple FIRs have been filed against him for his show on Palghar lynching. In that show, he had posed certain questions on the incident to Congress President Sonia Gandhi, following which Congress workers lodged complaints against him in various states.

Extending Goswami’s interim protection from arrest by three weeks, the Supreme Court said, “Right of a journalist under 19 1 (a) higher…Free citizens can’t exist if news media can’t speak.”

During the earlier hearing, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Goswami, had urged the court to transfer the probe to an agency like CBI. He said the “nature of the” second FIR against Goswami over a show on the migrant gathering outside Bandra station on April 14 “shows that it’s arm-twisting tactic”. 

“They are trying to stifle an unpleasant voice. This is a political party targeting a journalist. All complainants are members of one political party. They have a problem with the government. They want to teach this journalist a lesson,” he added.

Objecting to Salve’s plea to transfer the case to the CBI, Maharashtra government counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, had said, “CBI investigation will go into your hands”. 

Sibal denied that Goswami was being harassed and said he was only asked relevant questions. He said Goswami should “stop this communal violence and communal mongering”.

New Delhi, May 8: The Supreme Court on Friday suggested that states should consider indirect sale and home delivery of liquor as per its statute and law to avoid crowding at liquor shops amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan refused to pass any orders on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking clarity on the sale of liquor and to ensure social distancing while it is being sold in liquor shops during the lockdown.

"We will not pass any order but the states should consider indirect sale/home delivery of liquor to maintain social distancing norms and standards," Justice Ashok Bhushan said while disposing of the petition.

The PIL, filed by one Sai Deepak, sought directions for closure of liquor shops for failing to enforce social distancing, which is essential to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

The petitioner told the apex court that he only wants that the life of common people is not affected because of crowding at liquor shops during COVID-19.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, another judge in the bench, said that discussion on home delivery is already going on.

The top court, after hearing the petition complaining about flouting of safety norms at liquor shops, observed that it cannot pass any orders to different states but they should consider online sale and home delivery of liquor.

New Delhi, Feb 4: The investigation into the incident of violence at Jamia Millia Islamia during an anti-citizenship law protest was at a crucial stage, the Centre told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday.

The submission before a bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar was made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta while seeking more time to file a report regarding the probe.

Taking note of the submission, the bench granted the Centre time till April 29 to file a reply.

During the hearing, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for some students of Jamia, said 93 students and teachers filed complaints about alleged attacks on them by police but no FIR has been filed against the agency till date.

The other lawyers for the petitioners alleged that the government has not complied with the court order to file a response within four weeks of the last date of hearing on December 19.

The bench, however, declined to pass any interim order and granted time till April 29 to the government to file a reply.