New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has taken a view that police machinery should not serve notices to the accused through WhatsApp or other electronic modes.

“All the States/UTs must issue a Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue notices under Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023. It is made amply clear that service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023,” said a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal.

The Justice Sundresh-led Bench added that states and Union Territories(UTs) must issue an additional Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue notices to the accused persons or otherwise, only through the mode of service as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 or BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) 2023.

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, amicus curiae (friend of the court) flagged that the service of notice is to be made in person, as contemplated under the law, and not through WhatsApp or other electronic modes.

Luthra added that notice(s) under Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973 were sent to the accused through WhatsApp, but the accused did not appear before the Investigating Officers and no action was taken against such erring officers.

Further, he brought to the attention of the top court a Standing Order issued by DGP (Director General of Police), Haryana, permitting officials to serve notices in person or through WhatsApp, e-mail, SMS or any other electronic mode.

The amicus curiae referred to the decision of the top court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), upholding the Delhi High Court’s view that notice served through WhatsApp or other electronic modes is not contemplated as a mode of service under Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973 (now Section 35 of BNSS, 2023) since the same is not in accordance with Chapter VI of CrPC, 1973 (now Chapter VI of BNSS, 2023) and hence cannot be treated as a valid mode of serving notice.

He also made reference to Section 532 of BNSS, 2023 which states that all trials, inquiries and proceedings may be held in electronic mode, by use of electronic communication or use of audio-video electronic means, but does not permit notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 to be served through WhatsApp or other electronic modes.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Thursday took exception to the “scurrilous and unfounded allegations” made in a plea against the conferment of senior designations to lawyers.

“How many judges can you name whose offsprings have been designated as senior counsel?” a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan asked advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who appeared for the petitioners.

Referring to the averments in the plea, the bench observed it had insinuations against the judges.

“We find that various scurrilous, unfounded allegations have been made against the institution,” it said.

The bench referred to the averments made in the plea which read, “It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a judge sitting or retired, of the high court or Supreme Court, who has his offspring, brother, sister or nephew who has crossed the age of 40 remaining to be a plebeian lawyer.” The plea filed by Mr Nedumpara and several others, including many practising advocates, raised a grievance against the senior designations conferred to lawyers.

During the hearing, Mr Nedumpara, who offered to place certain data before the court, argued the bar was fearful of judges.

“Mr Nedumpara, this is a court of law. Not a boat club or Azad Maidan in Bombay (Mumbai) to make speeches. So, when you address a court of law, make legal arguments. Not the arguments only for the purpose of gallery,” said Justice Gavai.

The court said it was willing to grant him the liberty to amend the petition.

“If you do not amend the petition, we may take such steps as we find necessary,” it said.

The bench said it would have proceeded with the matter, but Nedumpara wanted to reflect on the plea’s averments and consult with other petitioners on the future course of action.

“Are you going to delete these averments or not?” the bench said, “be very clear whether you are going to carry on with these scurrilous averments or not.” The petitioners were granted four weeks’ time.

The plea alleged the classification of lawyers into two categories and conferring a minority with “favours and privileges” was against the concept of equality and the ethos of the Constitution.

“The instant petition challenges Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act which creates two classes of lawyers, senior advocates and other advocates which in actual practice has resulted in an unthinkable catastrophe and inequities which Parliament certainly would not have contemplated or foreseen,” it said.

The plea therefore sought quashing of the Delhi High Court’s recent conferment of senior designations to about 70 lawyers.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Kolkata:

The junior doctors of Kolkata have declared that they would continue their protest against the horrific rape-murder of a young doctor at Kolkata’s RG Kar hospital till justice is done. The announcement came late on Monday evening – hours after the Supreme Court gave them a 5-pm-Tuesday deadline to join work. 

The doctors said the protest is “a people’s movement and neither the government nor the Supreme Court should forget that”. 

“We are extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court hearing… the case has been transferred from the High Court to the Supreme Court, from the state police to the CBI. But justice is still out of reach,” said a spokesperson of the junior doctors at the RG Kar hospital, the epicentre of the strike.  

Accusing the state government of providing misinformation to the Supreme Court, the doctors said it is not correct to say that the healthcare system has collapsed. The state health department, in its affidavit, has said 23 people have died due to the doctors’ strike.

In a media communique earlier, the Bengal branch of the Indian Medical Association said they would support the decision of the junior doctors whatever it may be. 

“We were expecting a positive outcome keeping in mind the brutality of the offense. However we are totally disheartened by the proceedings of the court and CBI. No step was taken for a speedy trial to deliver justice to our colleague… It was also very much shocking to note the way the junior doctors were portrayed as responsible for few deaths in the hospitals is totally false and in no hospital the service is completely hampered due to the movement of the junior doctors,” the statement read.

The junior doctors have been observing “cease work” at state-run hospitals for nearly a month now. 

During its hearing of the case earlier on Monday, the top court had said the protesting doctors should return to work by Tuesday evening. 

“In order to create a sense of confidence we state that in the event that doctors come to work by 5 PM tomorrow, no adverse actions shall be taken. If there is continuous abstention from work despite the facilities given, there will be likelihood of action in future,” Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had said.

Pointing out that the 28-day protest has severely disrupted healthcare services, the Chief Justice said, “They are in a system to render service. We will provide facilities but they have to reciprocate. If doctors do not resume work, then we cannot stop the government from taking disciplinary action”. Junior doctors cannot say seniors are working, so they won’t, he added.

The top court’s direction came during a hearing of the case, which the court had taken up on its own after massive protests of the rape-murder of the 31-year-old doctor last month. The prime suspect who has been arrested is Sanjoy Roy, a civic volunteer with Kolkata Police who was stationed at the police outpost at the hospital and had access to all departments.

New Delhi:

Even a strong suspicion based on material on record raising the presumption of the role of an accused in an offence would justify the framing of charges in a criminal case, the Supreme Court held on Tuesday.

Refusing to quash the framing of charges in a disproportionate assets case, a bench comprising justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan said the top court was not supposed to conduct a “dress rehearsal of the trial”, that too at a preliminary stage where only the charges are framed by a lower court taking a prima facie view.

“We are not to conduct a dress rehearsal of the trial at this stage. The tests applicable for a discharge are well settled by a catena of judgments passed by this Court.

“Even a strong suspicion founded on material on record which is ground for presuming the existence of factual ingredients of an offence would justify the framing of charge against an accused person,” Justice Viswanathan said in the 46-page judgement he penned for the bench.

The court was hearing appeals filed by Puneet Sabharwal and RC Sabharwal assailing the Delhi High Court judgement.

The high court had refused to quash the trial court order of 2006 for framing of corruption charges against them.

While refusing to allow the pleas, the top court directed the trial court to expedite the trial which was pending for the last 25 years.

The trial commences with the recording of evidence in a criminal case after a court has taken a prima facie view of the material produced on record by the probe agency and framed charges against the accused.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)