New Delhi:

Hearing the bail petition of former West Bengal minister Partha Chatterjee, the Supreme Court today questioned the Enforcement Directorate over the low conviction rate in money laundering cases and asked how long the senior politician can be kept behind bars.

Mr Chatterjee, once a trusted lieutenant of Trinamool chief Mamata Banerjee and the Education Minister in her cabinet, was arrested in July 2022 in a money laundering case linked to the alleged teacher recruitment scam in the state. He has since been removed as minister and suspended from the Trinamool Congress.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mr Chatterjee, pointed out that the trial is yet to begin and the veteran leader has already been in jail for 2.5 years in a case in which the punishment is 7-year imprisonment. “Trial is yet to start, there are 183 witnesses, four supplementary prosecution complaints, he is 73 years of age,” he said. Mr Rohatgi said that even Mr Chatterjee’s aide Arpita Mukherjee, from whose home a mountain of cash was recovered, has been granted bail.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said it is a “big case in which people were deprived of jobs and undeserving candidates appointed”. He said Arpita Mukherjee had said that the massive cash recovered from her premises belonged to Partha Chatterjee. Mr Rohatgi said nothing was recovered from the minister.

The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan pointed out that the trial was yet to begin and hundreds of witnesses needed to be examined. “This is not the only case pending before the court you see… how long can we keep him behind bars?”

While acknowledging that the ED has a Herculean task on its hands and the allegations against the minister are “very serious”, the court said, “If in the ultimate analysis, he is not convicted, then what will happen? what will happen to the three years gone by.”

The court then asked the Centre’s lawyer, “What is your conviction rate for ED? It is very, very poor… We would have understood if it was 60 to 70 percent.”

Mr Raju said he was sure the minister would be convicted in this case and sentenced to seven years.

When the bench asked what will happen if he was released on bail, the Centre’s lawyer said, “There will be a retraction of statements by witnesses. Arpita is a close aide too.”

When Mr Rohatgi said it was a “horrendous argument”, Mr Raju replied it was a “horrendous crime”. The Centre’s lawyer said this was not a case to exercise discretion. “This is about neck-deep corruption… there are extreme and soft cases, this is an extreme case.”

Mr Rohatgi said the delay in the start of trial is the government’s problem. “This is not the law of bail and this court has tried to correct and steady the law on bail in the last six months,” he said, referring to the relief extended to AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and DMK’s Senthil Balaji.

The court then said it is “very easy for a political person to indulge in corruption and then say all this”. The matter was posted for Monday.

New Delhi:

Tough restrictions on vehicular movement and construction activities in Delhi will stay for now, the Supreme Court ruled today. The national capital, battling bad air days for the past few weeks, is currently under the fourth stage of curbs under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP). GRAP 4 was imposed after the Air Quality Index crossed the 450 mark last week and entered the ‘severe +’ category.

The court, which earlier said GRAP 4 curbs won’t be eased without its approval, said it would take a call on this question in the next hearing on Thursday. Delhi’s Air Quality Index is now a tad better than last week and has dropped to the ‘very poor’ band.

The court, however, said the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) can take a call on whether to resume physical classes in schools in Delhi and other cities in the National Capital Region.

The bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih cracked the whip on Delhi Police, warning the city police commissioner of prosecution for poor implementation of curbs to tackle the air pollution.

The bench today noted that without even seeing any report, it can say that no checkpoints to regulate vehicles are in action.

A counsel appearing for the 13 court-appointed commissioners who monitored implementation of the curbs told the bench that while checking happened, it is not clear how effective it was. The counsel said cops were “jumping in the middle of the road” to stop trucks and that there was no barricading at several checkpoints.

The Delhi government’s counsel said employees of various levels were deployed at the checkpoints. When the court asked if Delhi government issued specific instructions to Delhi Police, the former said Delhi Police does not come under its authority.

The court then asked the Commission for Air Quality Management and the Centre if they issued specific instructions to police. It was told that orders were issued for 23 checkposts. The court asked why it was not done for the other posts. “You were bound to post officers. We are going to ask the Delhi police commissioner to be penalised under the CAQM Act,” the court said.

The court noted that it is apparent that authorities have not made “earnest efforts” to implement the curbs and and asked CAQM to take action against the officials concerned. It said GRAP 4 curbs were not implemented properly and proper steps to stop trucks from entering Delhi were not taken.

On the question of resuming physical classes at schools, the bench noted that all children do not have access to Internet to take online classes. The court has asked the CAQM to take a call by tomorrow.

The court praised the 13 Bar members named court commissioners and said they will continue to monitor the situation and submit reports to the court.

“It is apparent that the authorities which are mentioned against item numbers 1, 2 and 3 of stage 4 of GRAP have made no earnest effort to implement the action in terms of clauses 1 – 3. Some police teams were deputed at a few entry points that also without any specific instruction. In fact the report of the court commissioner indicates that at most of the entry points the police were posted pursuant to the order of this court dated 23rd November. There is a serious lapse on the authorities mentioned against clauses 1 – 3. We therefore direct the Commission to immediately initiate action in terms of section 14 of the CAQM Act,” it said in its order.

The court also said that the curbs cannot be downgraded below GRAP 2 till the court sees a “consistent downward trend of AQI”. “We direct all the states to use funds collected as labour cess to provide subsistence to construction workers when such work is prohibited and all states shall comply with the same,” it said, adding that CAQM must issued directions to relief labourers and daily wagers.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court Bar Association, led by senior lawyer and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, has questioned the “radical changes” at the Supreme Court, including its new emblem and the statue of Lady Justice, and said the lawyers’ body was not consulted about them.

The bar association’s resolution said a museum has now been proposed at a location where they had demanded a cafe for lawyers. They have expressed concern that work on the museum has started despite their objection and opposed this move.

“It is observed by the Executive Committee of Supreme Court Bar Association that recently some radical changes have been brought in by the Supreme Court unilaterally like change of its emblem, change in the statue of Lady Justice without consultation with the Bar. We are equal stakeholders in the administration of justice but these changes when proposed, were never brought to our attention. We are totally clueless on the rationale behind these changes,” the resolution says.

“Now a museum has apparently been proposed in the erstwhile Judges Library whereas we had demanded a Library, Cafe cum Lounge for the members of the Bar as the present cafeteria is inadequate to cater to the needs of the members of the Bar. We are concerned that despite our objection raised against the proposed Museum in the erstwhile Judges library, work has started for the museum,” says the resolution, signed by Mr Sibal and other office-bearers of the lawyers’ body.

“We unanimously oppose the proposed museum in the High Security Zone and press our demand for a Library and a Cafe cum Lounge for our members instead,” it adds.

In the new Lady Justice statue in the Supreme Court, the blindfold has come off and a copy of the Constitution has replaced the sword in her left hand. The blindfold’s removal is aimed at sending a message that the law in the country is not blind, while the sword was replaced because it is a symbol of violence.

The Lady Justice statue, found at courts across the world, carries scales symbolising balance, has a blindfold symbolising impartiality and holds a sword suggesting that justice is swift and final. Several countries have made changes to this statue over time.

According to sources associated with Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud’s office, he believes that India should move on from the British legacy and that law is never blind, but sees everyone equally.

“Therefore, the Chief Justice said that the form of the Lady of Justice should be changed. He said the statue should have the Constitution in one hand and not a sword, so that a message goes out to the country that she dispenses justice according to the Constitution. The sword is a symbol of violence but courts deliver justice according to constitutional laws,” a source said.

The scales in the right hand, the source said, have been retained because they represent balance in society and symbolise courts weighing arguments from both sides before delivering a verdict.

The top court also has a new emblem and flag. The blue flag displays the Ashoka Chakra, the Supreme Court building and the Constitution. It has the Sanskrit verse ‘Yato Dharmastato Jai’ — meaning ‘Where there is Dharma, there is victory’ — written on it.

New Delhi:

Hearing a challenge to demolition notices served in Uttar Pradesh’s Bahraich after a communal clash, the Supreme Court today indirectly warned the Yogi Adityanath government against any bulldozer action. The court said it is the state government’s “choice” if it wants to risk violating the top court’s directions. The court, however, noted that its orders in the ‘bulldozer justice’ case specify that it will not intervene if the structures facing demolition are illegal.

The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan has asked the Uttar Pradesh government not to take any action before the next hearing tomorrow.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate CU Singh told the bench that local authorities issued demolition notices after the October 13 violence — which claimed one life — and asked them to respond within three days.

“Applicant No.1’s father and brothers surrendered… notices purportedly issued on 17 Oct, but pasted on 18th evening… we sought hearing on Sunday, but that did not happen. Some have approached HC,” Mr Singh said.

Earlier, the Allahabad High Court extended to 15 days the deadline to file replies to the demolition notices and directed the state authorities to decide after considering the responses. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, assured the court that no action would be taken till tomorrow.

“If they (UP authorities) want to take the risk of flouting our order, it’s their choice,” Justice Gavai said today. Justice Viswanathan added that the high court had given 15 days to file replies to the demolition notices. Mr Singh, however, said the petitioners have not been granted any protection. 

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a bunch of petitions against ‘bulldozer justice’ – a term used to refer to the practice of razing the property of individuals accused in criminal cases. The trend has caught on in several states, Uttar Pradesh among them. The court has clarified that being accused of a crime cannot be the basis for the demolition of property and only violation of civic rules may attract such action. The court has also paused demolitions carried out without its permission.

What Happened In Bahraich

On October 13, an altercation broke out in Bahraich’s Maharajganj when a group of people objected to loud music near a mosque during a procession for Durga Puja idol immersion. This snowballed into arson and vandalism in the area, forcing the local administration to snap Internet connectivity. Ram Gopal Mishra, 22, was shot dead during the clash. A video that circulated after the clash showed Mishra removing a green flag from a rooftop and replacing it with a saffron flag.

Police have arrested five persons suspected to be involved in Mishra’s death — Mohammad Faheen, Mohammad Sarfaraz, Abdul Hameed, Mohammad Taleem alias Sabloo, and Mohammad Afzal. Mohammad Talim and Mohammad Sarfaraz were arrested after they suffered gunshots in an encounter with Uttar Pradesh police. Police said the accused were trying to cross into Nepal when they were caught.

A total of 104 people have been arrested in connection with the violence and 23 establishments have been served demolition notices. Among those who were served notices is Hameed, one of the accused in the killing. Authorities, however, claim the notices were issued as part of a routine anti-encroachment drive. The notices have sparked panic among local residents as shopkeepers were seen vacating their premises. 

New Delhi:

Coming down heavily on the Indian Medical Association (IMA) president for his remarks in an interview, the Supreme Court today said that while it is first one to uphold the freedom of speech, “there are times when there should be self-restraint”.

IMA president Dr RV Asokan is drawing fire from the Supreme Court for his remarks in an interview, during which he commented on the court’s ruling in the misleading ads case against Patanjali Ayurved, founded by Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Balkrishna. In fact, IMA is the petitioner in the case against Patanjali for misleading claims about its products.

Pulling up Mr Asokan today, the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah said, “We would have expected more sense of responsibility from you… you can’t vent your feelings against the court in the press like this. What made you go suddenly like this?”

Mr Asokan offered an unconditional apology. Justice Kohli replied, “Whether we should accept your statements after such damaging statements, you are the one who dragged the other side to the court, saying they are denigrating you, but when you are put to test…?”

The bench added that it is not happy with his affidavit. Questioning why he did not issue a public apology, the court asked, “Everything was written in black and white, why did you not make amends if you truly wanted to apologise? What did you do to redeem yourself after the interview? Tell us.”

“We are the first one to uphold the freedom of free speech. But there are times when there should be self-restraint. As IMA President, you should have had self-restraint. That’s the point! We didn’t see that in your interviews,” Justice Kohli said.

“Dr Asokan, you are also a citizen of this country. The amount of criticism judges face, why don’t they react? Because personally we don’t have much of an ego, we are magnanimous. We are entitled to take action, but very rarely we do,” Justice Amanullah added.

The bench said judges use their discretion with some sense of responsibility. “But that does not mean you go to town with this kind of comments. You cannot just sit on a couch and say anything about the court. What would you have done if other side made this kind of comments! You would have come running to this Court,” it said. The court said it is not convinced by the affidavit submitted by the IMA president, describing it as “too little, too late”.

When Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for the IMA president, urged the court for relief, Justice Kohli said, “What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander … You can’t say anything and everything and then meekly say he fell in error. Are you saying he fell into some trap?”

The past few weeks have seen the tables turn in the case against Patanjali. Earlier, Ramdev and Balkrishna were admonished by the court over Patanjali’s ads that claimed to cure health conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes. The court also rejected multiple apologies by the two. However, the IMA president’s interview has put the petitioner medical body in a spot and the court has pulled him up. The matter has been posted for next hearing on July 9.