UP govt can't withdraw terror cases without Centre's consent: HC

December 12, 2013

yadav

Lucknow, Dec 12: In a setback to Uttar Pradesh government, the Allahabad High Court today held that it cannot withdraw prosecution in terror cases in which the accused have been booked under central acts without Centre's permission.

The ruling was given by the high court's Lucknow bench of justices Devi Prasad Singh, Ajai Lamba and Ashok Pal Singh on questions raised by a two-judge division bench on a PIL filed by Ranjana Agnihotri and five other local lawyers.

The PIL had sought a direction for quashing the order of the UP government for withdrawal of cases against people accused of blasts and terror activities that included 2007 serial explosions at Lucknow and Gorakhpur.

"Prosecution under central acts cannot be withdrawn without permission of the central government," the three-judge bench said.

BJP welcomed the court ruling saying it was a "slap" on the Akhilesh Yadav government.

"It is a slap on the Akhilesh Yadav government which is following the policy of Muslim appeasement," state BJP spokesman Vijay Bahadur Pathak said.

"For offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act and the offences falling in Chapter VI of IPC or alike offences the executive power of the Union of India extends, hence the permission of the central government with regard to withdrawal of prosecution shall be necessary," the three-judge bench held.

The bench also said that the prosecution cannot be withdrawn without assigning reason.

"If an application is moved for withdrawal from prosecution in a case relating to terrorism and waging of war against the country, specific and special reason has to be assigned," it said.

On June 7 while staying the state government's order to withdraw cases against people accused of terror activities, a division bench of justices Rajeev Sharma and Mahendra Dayal had referred the matter to a larger bench.

The two-judge bench had questioned whether the state government could issue an order for withdrawAl of cases withou any request being there from the public prosecutor.

It had also raised the question whether the prosecution of offence relating to the central act may be withdrawn without taking permission from the central government.

It had further asked, "Whether the state government after giving sanction for prosecution review its own order by issuing orders for withdrawal of the cases."

The larger bench comprising the three judges while answering the questions directed that the case be listed before the appropriate bench.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 6,2020

New Delhi, Mar 6: Justice S Muralidhar Thursday cleared the air over the controversy on his transfer from the Delhi High Court to Punjab and Haryana High Court, saying he had replied to Chief Justice of India S A Bobde's communication that he was fine with the proposal and had no objection to it.

The controversy erupted after the Centre issued Justice Muralidhar's transfer notification close to mid night of February 26 -- the day a bench headed by him had pulled up Delhi Police for failing to register FIRs against three BJP leaders for their alleged hate speeches which purportedly led to the recent violence in northeast Delhi.

Justice Muralidhar (58), who received a grand farewell on Thursday from a huge gathering including judges and lawyers amid big rounds of applause, said he wanted to clear the confusion on his transfer and narrated the sequence of events from the time he received CJI's communication till February 26.

The Supreme Court collegium, headed by the CJI, had in a meeting on February 12 recommended the transfer of Justice Muralidhar to Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Justice Muralidhar was number three in the Delhi High Court, his parent high court as a judge.

Explaining the transfer process, he said the 5-member collegium sends to the Centre a recommendation that a judge of a high court should be transferred to another high court. The judge concerned is not at this stage under orders of transfers. That happens only when the collegium's recommendation fructifies into a notification.

“In my case, the collegium's decision was communicated to me by the CJI on February 17 by a letter which sought my response. I acknowledged receipt of the letter, I was then asked to clarify what I meant. As I saw it, if I was to be transferred from the Delhi High Court any way, I was fine with moving to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

“I therefore clarified to the CJI that I did not object to the proposal. An explanation for my transfer reached the press...on February 20 quoting 'sources in the Supreme Court collegium', confirming what has been indicated to me a couple of days earlier,” he said.

The CJI's letter dated February 14 was delivered to Justice Muralidhar on February 17, the day when the family's pet labrador Sakhi breathed her last.

He said February 26 was perhaps the longest working day of his life as a judge of the Delhi High Court, where he has spent 14 years on the bench.

He said it began at 12:30 am with a sitting at his residence with Justice A J Bhambhani, under the orders of Justice G S Sistani, to deal with a PIL filed by Rahul Roy seeking safe passage of ambulances carrying the injured riot victims.

“When I received a call at my residence from the lawyer for the petitioner, I first called Justice Sistani to ask what should be done, knowing that the Chief Justice (CJ) was on leave. Justice Sistani explained that he too was officially on leave the whole of February 26 and that I should take up the matter.

“This fact is stated in the order passed by the bench after the hearing. Later that day, upon urgent mentioning, as the de facto CJ's bench, Justice Talwant Singh and I took up another fresh PIL on the CJ's board seeking registration of FIRs for hate speeches. After the orders passed on that day, the above two PILs remained on the CJ's Board,” he said.

Justice Muralidhar ended the speech saying the notification which was issued close to midnight of February 26 did two things.

“First, it transferred me to Punjab and Haryana High Court. Second, it appointed me to a position from where I can never be transferred, or removed and in which I shall always be proud to remain. A 'former judge' of arguably the best high court in the country. The High Court of Delhi,” he said, following a standing ovation by all the judges and the gathering, including his family members, former judges, lawyers, court staff and media persons.

Earlier in the day, a farewell programme was also organised by the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

While addressing the gathering at the bar's function, Justice Muralidhar concluded his address saying “When justice has to triumph, it will triumph ... Be with the truth - Justice will be done.”

Justice Muralidhar's mother, wife Usha Ramanathan, former Delhi High Court chief justice A P Shah, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan and former Delhi University VC Upendra Baxi were also present at the later function that was organised by the court.

Bidding adieu to Justice Muralidhar, Delhi HC CJ D N Patel said it was an occasion which has come with a saddening effect and his absence will be felt institutionally as well as personally.

Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra termed Justice Muralidhar as a “highly intellectual, courageous, upright and incorruptible judge” and sang bengali song 'ekla chalo re' to describe him.

Mehra said he joins Delhi High Court Bar Association in “strongly condemning” Justice Muralidhar's transfer.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 23,2020

Jun 23: The U.S. government on Monday restricted charter flights from India, accusing the nation of "unfair and discriminatory practices" by violating a treaty governing aviation between the two countries.

Air India Ltd. has been making flights to repatriate its citizens during the travel disruptions caused by the Covid-19 outbreak, but also has been selling tickets to the public, the Transportation Department alleged.

At the same time, U.S. airlines have been prohibited from flying to India by aviation regulators there, the DOT said in its order. The situation "creates a competitive disadvantage for U.S. carriers," the agency said in a press release.

Air India is advertising a schedule that is more than half of pre-virus operations, the department said. "The charters go beyond true repatriations, and it appears that Air India may be using repatriation charters as a way of circumventing" that nation's flight restrictions, the U.S. agency said.

The order becomes effective in 30 days, the department said.

Indian airlines must apply to the DOT for authorization before conducting charter flights so that it can scrutinize them more closely, it said. The department will reconsider the restrictions once India lifts restrictions on U.S. carriers.

The action against India follows weeks of DOT restrictions against Chinese airlines after the U.S. agency accused that nation of unfairly banning American carriers in the wake of the virus. On June 15, the U.S. announced it would agree to allow four flights a week from China after it allowed the same number by U.S. carriers.

Attempts to reach Air India and the Indian embassy in Washington after business hours were unsuccessful.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 25,2020

New Delhi, Apr 25: Neighbourhood and standalone shops, including those selling garments, mobile phones, hardware and stationery items have been allowed to open but those located in market places, malls and COVID-19 hotspots and containment zones, will continue to remain shut till May 3.

In rural areas, all shops, except those in single and multi-brand shopping malls, are allowed to open.

However, a Home Ministry official said the final decision of whether to allow the additional shops to open or not will be taken by the state governments and Union Territory administrations depending on their respective COVID-19 situation.
 
While allowing opening of more shops, a move seen as a relief to people who have been under lockdown since March 24, the government order issued on Friday night said the shops will be functioning with 50 per cent of workforce and after adhering strictly to precautions which include social distancing and wearing of masks.

The Union Home Ministry also said malls, liquor and cigarette shops, sale of non-essential items through e-commerce platforms continue to remain shut.

Restaurants, hair salons and barber shops will not be allowed to open as these render services and do not fall under the shop category.

Amending its April 15 order, Union Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla said in the Friday night order that "all shops, including neighbourhood shops and standalone shops, shops in residential complexes, within the limits of municipal corporations and municipalities, registered under the the Shops and Establishment Act of the respective State and UT" will be allowed to open during the lockdown.

The ministry also said shops located in registered markets located outside the municipal corporations and municipalities can open after following the drill of social distancing and wearing of masks but with 50 per cent of strength.

However, single and multi-brands shall continue to remain closed in these areas also.

"All shops registered under the the Shops and Establishment Act of the respective State/UT, including shops in residential complexes and market complexes, except shops in multi-brand and single brand malls, outside the limits of municipal corporations and municipalities, with 50 per cent strength of workers with wearing of masks and social distancing being mandatory" will be allowed to function, the order said.

In a statement on Saturday, the Home Ministry said the order implies that in rural areas, all shops, except those in shopping malls are allowed to open.

In urban areas, all standalone shops, neighbourhood shops and shops in residential complexes are allowed to open.

Shops in markets and market complexes and shopping malls are not allowed to open.

"It is clarified that sale by e-commerce companies will continue to be permitted for essential goods only," the order said and also added that sale of liquor and other items continues to be prohibited as specified in the national directives for COVID-19 management.

The ministry said that liquor shops were given licence under the Excise Act of the states and the establishments thrown open from Saturday were covered under the Shops and Establishment Act of the states.

Sale of cigarettes, gutka are continue to be prohibited during the lockdown.

"As specified in the consolidated revised guidelines, these shops will not be permitted to open in areas, whether rural or urban, which are declared as containment zones by respective States and Union Territories," the statement said.

The lockdown was first announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on March 24 in a bid to combat the coronavirus pandemic. It was further extended till May 3.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.