ISRO launches record 20 satellites in one go

Mumbai, Apr 14: Activist and scholar Anand Teltumbde was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Tuesday after he surrendered before it in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.

Teltumbde surrendered at the NIA office at Cumbala Hill in south Mumbai following the Supreme Court's directives.

He was subsequently arrested by the NIA and shall be produced before a court here shortly, an official said.

Earlier, the scholar reached the NIA office in the afternoon along with his wife Rama Teltumbde and brother-in- law and Dalit leader Prakash Ambedkar.

Anand Teltumbde is the grandson-in-law of Dalit icon Dr B R Ambedkar, whose 129th birth anniversary is being observed on Tuesday.

Civil rights activist Gautam Navlakha, a co-accused in the case, also surrendered before the NIA in Delhi. His anticipatory bail plea was also rejected by the apex court.

According to the official, Navlakha will be produced before the court in Mumbai through video conference.

The Supreme Court on March 17 this year rejected the pre-arrest bail pleas of Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha, and directed them to surrender before the investigating agency.

Teltumbde, Navlakha and nine other civil liberties activists have been booked under the stringent provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for having alleged Maoist links and conspiring the overthrow the government.

The apex court while rejecting Teltumbde and Navlakha's bail pleas on March 17, directed them to surrender before the prosecuting agency withing a period of three weeks.

The duo later sought extension of the time.

On April 9, the Supreme Court extended the time by one week by way of last chance.

The activists were booked initially by Pune Police following violence that erupted at Koregaon-Bhima there.

According to police, the activists made inflammatory speeches and provocative statements at the Elgar Parishad meet held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which triggered violence the next day.

The police also said these activists were active members of banned Maoist groups.

The case was later transferred to NIA. Teltumbde and Navlakha were given interim protection by the Bombay High Court while their pre-arrest bail pleas were being heard.

After the high court rejected their applications, the duo approached the Supreme Court.

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea by Mukesh Kumar Singh, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said that expeditious disposal of mercy plea by the President doesn't mean non-application of mind by him.

The court also said that alleged sufferings in prison can't be grounds to challenge the rejection of mercy petition.

The bench said all relevant material including judgments pronounced by trial court, high court and Supreme Court were placed before the President when he was considering the mercy plea of the convict.

The bench also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna rejected the contentions of the counsel appearing for Singh that entire materials of the case were not placed before the President when he was considering his mercy plea.

The bench, while referring to two files placed before it by the Centre on Tuesday, said that as per the January 15 covering letter which was sent by the Delhi government to the Ministry of Home Affairs, all relevant documents were sent.

The bench noted that detailed judgements of trial court, high court and the Supreme Court, curative petition filed by Singh, his past criminal history and his family background were sent to the Home Ministry by the Delhi government.

"All the documents were taken into consideration by the President while rejecting the mercy petition," the bench said.

The bench also dealt with submissions advanced by the convict's counsel, who had argued that the mercy plea was rejected at "lightning speed".

The bench said that if a mercy petition is expeditiously dealt with, it cannot be assumed that it has been adjudicated upon in a pre-conceived mind.