Is this some kind of joke: SC on trial through WhatsApp

Agencies
September 9, 2018

New Delhi, Sept 9: Have you ever heard of a trial in a criminal case being conducted through instant messaging app WhatsApp?

Bizzare but true.

This peculiar case has reached the Supreme Court, which was left wondering as to how this kind of a "joke" was allowed to happen in a court of law in India.

The case, involving a former minister of Jharkhand and his MLA wife, saw the lower court judge in Hazaribagh putting these accused on trial by pronouncing the order framing charges against them through a 'WhatsApp' call.

Former Jharkhand minister Yogendra Sao and his wife Nirmala Devi, who are accused in a rioting case of 2016, were granted bail last year by the top court which had imposed a condition that they shall stay in Bhopal and not enter Jharkhand except for attending the court proceedings.

Both the accused have now told the apex court that the trial judge had on April 19 this year framed charges against them through a 'WhatsApp' call despite they raising objections to it.

A bench comprising Justices S A Bobde and L N Rao took serious note of the submissions and said, "What is happening in Jharkhand. This process cannot be allowed, and we cannot allow administration of justice to be brought into disrepute".

"We are here on the way of trial being conducted through WhatsApp. This can not be done. What kind of a trial is this? Is this a kind of joke?" the bench asked the counsel appearing for Jharkhand.

The bench issued a notice to Jharkhand on the plea by both the accused, who have sought transfer of their cases from Hazaribagh to New Delhi, and asked the state to respond to it within two weeks.

Jharkhand's counsel told the top court that Sao has been violating the bail condition and had been out of Bhopal most of the time due to which proceedings in the case were delayed.

To this, the bench observed, "That is a different thing. If you have a problem with violation of bail conditions by the accused, you can file a separate application seeking cancellation of bail. We make it clear that we have no sympathy with those who have violated bail condition."

Senior advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for the couple, said that the accused were granted bail on December 15, 2017 by the apex court in the case and they were directed to stay in Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh as a bail condition.

"The trial was directed to be conducted through video conferencing from district court in Bhopal and district court in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand," he said.

Tankha said that video conferencing connectivity was most of the times "very low" in Bhopal and Hazaribagh district courts and the April 19 order was pronounced by the trial judge through 'WhatsApp' call.

The bench asked Tankha as to how many cases were pending against both the accused.

Tankha said that 21 cases were pending against Sao, while nine cases were pending against his wife.

"They are both politicians and have led various protests against land acquisition done by the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) in Jharkhand and most of these cases relate to those agitations," he said.

Tankha said that since both them were lawmakers at the time of filing of these cases, the trial in these matters should be transferred to the special court in Delhi which is exclusively dealing with cases involving politicians.

Both Devi and Sao were accused in the case relating to violent clashes between villagers and police in 2016 in which four persons were killed. Sao had become a minister in the Hemant Soren government in August 2013.

According to police, Devi had led an agitation against NTPC authorities for their alleged attempt to forcefully evacuate villagers from Barkagaon without giving them due compensation or rehabilitation.

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.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

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 17,2020

New Delhi, Apr 17: With 1,076 new cases of COVID-19 in the last 24 hours and 32 deaths, India's total count of coronavirus cases has surged to 13,835, said the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Friday.

The total cases are inclusive of 1,766 cured and discharged patients, one migrated and 452 deaths. At present, there are 11,616 active COVID-19 cases in the country.

Before the lockdown, the doubling rate of COVID-19 cases was about three days, but according to the data of the past 7 days, the doubling rate of cases now stands at 6.2 days, said Lav Aggarwal, Joint Secretary, Health and Family Welfare.

"Before the lockdown, doubling rate of COVID-19 cases was about three days but according to the data of past 7 days, the doubling rate of cases now stands at 6.2 days," Aggarwal said during the daily briefing on COVID-19.

Aggarwal said that as many as 5 lakh rapid antibody testing kits are being distributed to States and Districts where a high case burden has been observed.

"A total of 1,919 dedicated COVID-19 hospitals with 1.73 lakh isolation beds, 21,800 ICU beds readied in India," he added. 

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 27,2020

New Delhi, Jun 27: Fuel prices were hiked by the oil marketing companies for the 21st day in a row on Saturday. Petrol and diesel will now cost Rs 80.38/litre and Rs 80.40/litre respectively in the national capital.

The price of petrol is increased by Rs 0.25 per litre while that of diesel by Rs 0.21 per litre.
Rates differ from state to state depending on the incidence of value-added tax (VAT).

Notably, oil marketing companies have been adjusting retail rates in line with costs after an 82-day break from rate revision amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. These firms on June 7 restarted revising prices in line with costs.

The Congress party had called the increase in the price of petrol and diesel 'unjust', 'thoughtless' and demanded from the Central government to roll back increase with immediate effect and pass on the benefit of low oil prices directly to the citizens of this country.
In an official statement, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) had said that no government should levy and impose such unacceptable strain on its people.

Before the nation entered the lockdown, the average price of petrol and diesel in Delhi was Rs 69.60 per litre and Rs 62.30 per litre respectively.

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.